Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL

ABERYSTWYTH HARBOUR BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Coal Industry

Mr. Barron: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal to discuss changes in working practices in the coal industry.

Mr. Haynes: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I have regular meetings with the chairman of British Coal to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

Mr. Barron: In talking to the all-party minerals group and in recent public statements, the chairman of British Coal has spoken extensively about the changes in work practices in the Margam colliery and elsewhere in the

British coalfields. Will the Secretary of State join me in asking the chairman of British Coal to meet the national executive committees of the mining unions so that any changes in national agreements can be negotiated in a proper manner instead of being handed down like a diktat from the British Coal board?

Mr. Walker: One has seen the reaction of Welsh miners and other people in the mining industry to the proposals that have been made. The hon. Gentleman knows that a great many people in the mining industry, including many of the staff of NACODS, work more than a five-day week. Most miners are interested in improving their productivity.

Mr. Haynes: Did the Secretary of State discuss the problem of mining subsidence with the chairman of British Coal, bearing in mind the problem that I and other hon. Members who represent mining constituencies have experienced and the fact that many miners have had claims rejected because British Coal has moved the goal posts arid left people with a raw deal? I hope that the Secretary of State will discuss this problem with the chairman of British Coal and get it sorted out.

Mr. Walker: We have had discussions with the board and others on this subject and I hope that we can make some positive proposals in this sphere.

Mr. Colvin: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would welcome any developments in the coal industry that would make British coal competitive enough to burn in Fawley B power station in my constituency, if it is ever built. Can he yet reply to my constituents' request for a full public inquiry before he gives the go-ahead for that power station?

Mr. Walker: I am in a difficult position, as my hon. Friend will understand. I have had no application from the CEGB for such a power station, but I can assure my hon. Friend that I will bear in mind the local views, including the ones that he has just mentioned, if such an application takes place.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the interesting remarks that Mick McGahey made last week


when he said that modern work practices must be introduced in Margam and elsewhere, and that the Labour movement should be a movement not a monument?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. It is remarkable that at present Mr. Scargill seems unwilling to accept that large sections of this country work variable shifts. Nobody is asking any miner to work shifts that are in any way contrary to the present safety standards, and I find it quite staggering that this matter is not being looked at objectively. I am delighted that for once I have Mr. McGahey on my side.

Mr. Mason: Does the Secretary of State agree with the often expressed view of the chairman of British Coal that if the National Union of Mineworkers does not accept the proposed changes in working practices no new mines will be sunk or, alternatively, that he will call on the Union of Democratic Mineworkers to do the job? That is not conducive to good industrial relations. What does the Secretary of State think about it?

Mr. Walker: First, I hasten to say that I have heard no such remarks by the chairman of the Coal Board, who has sensibly pointed out to meetings which included members of the NUM and other mining unions that competition and productivity were the all-important elements and that it is in the interests of miners to do better in using the massive amount of capital that the Government have injected into the industry.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Secretary of State accept that some of the changes in working practices may require legislation rather than meetings with the chairman of British Coal, and that it would therefore be highly desirable for him to meet the national executives of the mining unions to discuss the successful future of the industry, for which Labour Members wish perhaps more than do Conservatives?

Mr. Walker: I am not sure who the hon. Gentleman means by "him", but if he means me, I am always willing to meet the executives of any of the unions concerned to discuss any questions that they wish to discuss. I should be only too delighted to discuss with the executive of any mineworkers union the manner in which they can take advantage of the £5 billion investment that the Government have put into the industry.

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what has been the increase in labour productivity in the coal mining industry since March 1984.

Mr. Peter Walker: For the week ending 2 May average deep-mined revenue output per man shift was 3·65 tonnes, an impressive increase of more than 50 per cent. on the average of 2·43 for 1983–84.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that substantial increase in productivity is a remarkable tribute to the miners and to the management of the National Coal Board, and does he expect further improvement in the forthcoming year?

Mr. Walker: Yes, I very much hope for further improvements, which I hope will be contrasted by those who are interested in the future of the industry with the fact that under the Labour Government productivity fell year after year.

Mrs. Clywd: As the Secretary of State continually congratulates the south Wales miners on their increased

productivity, will he tell them whether an application has been made to Brussels for EC financial aid for the Margam development and, if not, why not?

Mr. Walker: I am not sure whether the application has been made, but I assure the hon. Lady that it is being made.

Mr. Fallon: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there has been a 43 per cent. improvement in productivity in the north-east coalfield in exactly the same period? Is he aware that that field will be profitable this year and for the first time in years is recruiting some 200 trainees? Does he agree that that gives the lie to the claim that the Government are not supporting the industry in the north-east?

Mr. Walker: Yes. In the five years of the Labour Government £3·5 billion at current prices was invested in the industry, compared with more than £5 billion in five years of Conservative Government. That proves the point. My hon. Friend is, however, slightly out of date. In the week ending 2 May the north east achieved an all-time record of 3·42 tonnes per man shift.

Mr. Allen MacKay: Bearing in mind all the successes that the Secretary of State has been talking about, does he agree that taking on private capital or privatising the industry would be an ideological and political decision rather than a business decision?

Mr. Walker: I have always told the House that I have examined no immediate plans for privatisation, because at present substantial volumes of aid and assistance have to go in to rationalise the industry, but I would never be against the management and employees of the coal industry having a direct participation in their industry.

Mr. Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend accept that productivity in the south Derbyshire and south Leicestershire coalfields in my constituency is at its highest ever? Does he agree that that is a tribute to the reasonableness of the miners there, most of whom are members of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, and justifies the massive investment that the Government are to put into the area in the future?

Mr. Walker: There are few industries in the world in which during the period of a Government about £2 million per day has been invested in new machinery, new equipment and new capital. I am delighted that we have done that, and I am even more delighted that the miners have responded with the present marvellous productivity figures.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Is the Secretary of State aware that the increased productivity of British mines is due not only to the laudable efforts of the miners but to the machinery that has recently been introduced? Is he further aware that British mining machinery manufacturers are very critical of the Government's attitudes and policies towards the manufacture of that machinery?

Mr. Walker: It so happens that one of the most successful and biggest mining machinery manufacturers in the country is in my constituency. I might be accused of having put all this investment in the mining industry for that reason. It has no complaints about the Government.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents have been breaking records week in and week out for the past six months and that the western


area is now, for the first time in 13 years, profitable? Is it not the case that under the Conservative Government the coal industry is increasingly becoming one in which the work force and management are proud to work?

Mr. Walker: Yes. When the Conservative Government came to power after five years of declining productivity under the last Labour Government, no one would have considered it possible to increase productivity by 50 per cent. during this period.

Mr. Eadie: In the light of the satisfactory figures that the Secretary of State has announced, do the Government propose to do anything about cheap, subsidised coal imports?

Mr. Walker: The fact is that the coal industry will get a bigger share of the market due to its improved productivity, and I am delighted about that.

Foreign Nuclear Power Reactors

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has as to how many foreign nuclear power reactors are at approximately the same distance as or nearer to the United Kingdom than, Chernobyl.

'The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): The publicly available figures on the siting of power reactors show that there are some 185 civil power reactors in operation or under construction at approximately the same or a nearer distance to the United Kingdom than Chernobyl.

Mr. Chapman: Even if we did not have the highest standards of design, construction and safety in our British nuclear power stations, does not my hon. Friend's reply underline the absurdity of Britain having any policy either of standstill in nuclear power development or, even more absurd, of getting rid of such power stations? Is not the real lesson from Chernobyl that there must be the highest enforceable international standards of safety, inspection and exchange of information in all matters nuclear?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This country has welcomed and signed the two new conventions on early notification and mutual assistance. The International Atomic Energy Agency is considering a number of proposals for international co-operation, some of them put forward by my right hon. Friend. We are fully committed to that work.

Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Secretary of State aware that the chief inspector for nuclear installations told the Energy Select Committee last week that he did not have sufficient staff to enable him to liaise with his European counterparts? He also informed the Committee that, because of that shortage, various serious situations have been created at Sellafield which could have led to serious accidents. What are the Minister's views on that?

Mr. Goodlad: With the greatest possible respect, the hon. Gentleman has not quite accurately recounted what the chief inspector of nuclear installations said. The NII has always been able to carry its essential statutory function. The Government are determined that the NII should be adequately staffed by suitably qualified people. The inspectors were awarded a special pay increase of

£3,500 last September. Salaries have been increased further to achieve the Government's determination to have 120 inspectors by April next year.

Dr. Michael Clark: Is my hon. Friend aware that I support the remarks of the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse)? I support nuclear power, but we can have it only if we are certain that there is adequate safety monitoring? Will my hon. Friend think again about his reply to the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford, because at the Energy Select Committee last week it was said that there was difficulty in recruiting people of the right calibre for the NII?

Mr. Goodlad: With respect, the remarks of the chief nuclear installations inspector to which my hon. Friend refers may have been made in ignorance of the further increases of pay that I have just announced.

Mr. Orme: Does the Minister agree that Mr. Ryder's comments to the Select Committee are important and that the Government should make a public response to Mr. Ryder's allegations?

Mr. Goodlad: I have no doubt that when the Select Committee's report appears a response will be forthcoming in the usual way.

Efficiency

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his latest assessment of the impact of his Department's measures to promote energy efficiency.

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what new proposals he has to increase measures for the conservation of energy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): The take-up of schemes and sales of energy efficiency products increased significantly during Energy Efficiency Year. My right hon. Friend and I are building upon the success of the year through the development of a 14-point programme of action which I outlined to my hon. Friend in January.

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and the steps that he has taken to promote energy efficiency. Will he join me in welcoming the new initiative taken by Surrey county council whereby, for a nominal sum, firms can make use of an airborne survey, using infrared scanning, to detect heat loss from buildings, and can then take remedial action to save significantly on their heating bills?

Mr. Hunt: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Surrey county council on its mounting of the airborne thermographic survey. It is a worthwhile and forward-looking initiative. Thermographic surveys can pinpoint energy waste and are a vital weapon in the battle to ensure that we are a more energy-efficient nation.

Mr. Janner: How much are the Government proposing to spend in the next 12 months on energy conservation, and how much do they believe that such expenditure will save the country?

Mr. Hunt: The Government propose to continue the clear emphasis that they have already placed on concentrating more help on those who are in the greatest need, as visualised in the announcement of my right hon.


Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that the home insultation scheme will be concentrated on low-income families. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has announced the furthering of the work of the vital community insulation projects.

Mr. Rost: Can my hon. Friend report any progress in his discussions with the Treasury to allow the public sector to take advantage of private sector energy management companies offering third-party financing on an energy-shared saving basis? Does he realise that the delay has held up a huge area of investment in the public sector that could have reduced public expenditure on energy bills?

Mr. Hunt: The new Government guidelines on the use of contract energy management in the public sector have increased significantly the ways in which taxpayers and ratepayers can be saved hundreds of millions of pounds a year in energy bills. The guidelines are an important step forward in our campaign to increase energy efficiency in the public sector.

Mr. Rowlands: Will the Minister confirm one simple fact? Does he accept that where there are no MSC-sponsored community energy projects, individual poorer households will not now be able to obtain the equivalent of single payment for draughtproofing, as they were until recently?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman constantly decries the work of community insulation projects. When the Government came into power there were six such projects, and there are now 385. It is the Government's determination to ensure that there is a correct balance of groups throughout the country. The ultimate target is a total—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hunt: I remind the hon. Gentleman that when the Government came to power there were six groups that had been set up by his Administration. We now have a target of 500 groups, and I hope that these will cover all the areas that need this support.

Union of Democratic Mineworkers

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to meet the Union of Democratic Mineworkers to discuss industrial relations in the mining industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: I am pleased to say that I shall be addressing the Union of Democratic Mineworkers' annual conference, when I expect to discuss many issues with it.

Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent reply. Is it not stunning proof of one nation when representatives of working miners get round to inviting a Conservative Secretary of State to address their annual conference? Given the recent expressions of dissent from Mr. Scargill by even the National Union of Mineworkers in south Wales, does my right hon. Friend agree that only the Conservative party could have released miners from the bondage of the NUM?

Mr. Peter Walker: Obviously, I welcome the opportunity to address the conference of those mineworkers who abided by the traditional position of mineworkers in this country of taking industrial action

only after they had balloted. Those miners overwhelmingly balloted not to strike and with great courage continued to work during that period. I welcome the opportunity to discuss matters with the union, especially as its members, too, broke all-time production records last week.

Mr. O'Brien: In the discussions that the Secretary of State may have with members of the UDM, or any other mining unions, will he raise with them the arrears that are due to pensioners and widows as a result of their pensions increase? Will the Secretary of State accept from me that those pensioners have not received their increases, which were due last October? Will he assure the UDM and other mineworkers that that pension increase will be paid? Will he assure the UDM and other mineworkers that the devastating effect on retired miners as a result of not receiving that increase will be erased and that the despicable attitude of British Coal and the trustees of the pension scheme in not paying that increase will be changed? Does he agree that the pension should be increased?

Mr. Walker: I also agree that, as a result of this Government, more miners have retired on better pensions than ever before. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of that.

Mr. Andy Stewart: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend will address the members of the UDM at its annual meeting. Is it not because of the present industrial relations attitude adopted by the UDM that we have these record productivity increases? Is not Nottinghamshire the cheapest producer of coal in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Walker: Obviously, I am delighted that the week I have just quoted represented an all-time record for the Nottinghamshire miners. Their achievements have been remarkable. The entire nation praises the UDM, not only for what it is achieving at the present time, but for the manner in which UDM members faced the mobs organised against them during the coal dispute.

Mr. Ashton: Is the Secretary of State aware that last Thursday the UDM in Nottinghamshire had a secret ballot and voted overwhelmingly for the Labour party? In my constituency and in Mansfield they were the best results that we have had for many years. Is the Secretary of State aware that the Tories took the city of Nottingham—they won it by one seat, when Labour had previously held it by one seat? In one campaign the Tories won by three votes only and the alliance did not win a seat, although the Communists did?

Mr. Walker: I note the hon. Gentleman's neurosis about the impending election. Given the lack of support that the Labour party gave to the Nottinghamshire miners I expect some devastatingly bad results for the Labour party in the election.

Commercial Buildings

Mr. Powley: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement concerning the construction of more energy-efficient commercial buildings.

Mr. David Hunt: My energy efficiency office is concerned to encourage the construction of energy-efficient commercial buildings and supports a range of


initiatives to improve the energy efficiency of new commercial buildings, in collaboration with professional groups and the industry.

Mr. Powley: I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive reply. Does he agree with me that if measures were taken along these lines there would be sufficient energy savings to produce a much more economical operation for the companies concerned? Does he agree also that it is necessary to involve architects and developers in the measures that he has outlined? Does he further agree that it is important to proceed along these lines to ensure a better working environment for those employed in such buildings?

Mr. David Hunt: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. All new buildings should incorporate the latest energy efficient designs. Consumer expectation has been raised by the development of low-energy buildings. However, it is calculated that industrial and commercial buildings waste £800 million a year, and that is why I recognised what my hon. Friend said, that we must work harder to gain the support of building professionals, through close collaboration.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: Will the Minister tell the House exactly what measures his Department will take to promote energy efficiency, not only in commercial buildings, but in old-age pensioners homes, to prevent the high number of deaths from hypothermia every dreadful winter?

Mr. Hunt: The Government have done more than any other Government, not just in providing heating allowances and heating support, but in ensuring that community insulation projects go from strength to strength. We are now aiming at such projects producing 8,000 jobs and insulating over 300,000 houses per year, particularly those belonging to people on low incomes.

Opencast Mining

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what is his estimate of the output from opencast mining in 1987.

Mr. David Hunt: The Government have no target for opencast production.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister accept that a substantial level of opencast production is secured at the cost of grave disadvantage to communities living in the vicinity of mining sites? Bearing in mind that there are gatherings of those who are poised to secure profit from the privatisation of the coal business, will the Minister assure hon. Members that the views of local communities will be given commanding influence when any proposals are considered to ensure that the local environment, rather than private profit, is preserved? Will the Minister also ensure that the people of Rawmarsh, Wath and Swinton in my constituency are safe from the development of an unwanted site?

Mr. Hunt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, with his background in and experience of the coal industry, is aware that British Coal is among the world leaders in the restoration of opencast sites. It is important to recognise that the right balance must be struck between developing opencast coal reserves and the need to protect the

environment. British Coal's new booklet on opencast coal mining emphasises the opencast executive's positive commitment to the highest environmental standards.

Mr. Michael Morris: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the cost of production of opencast coal is way below that of deep-mined coal and that, particularly over the past 10 years, there has been a total transformation in the restoration of workings of opencast coal mines, to the extent that we lead the world?

Mr. Hunt: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I emphasise again that opencast coal is an important resource in the United Kingdom that can be produced cheaply and profitably. It is a vital part of British Coal's operations, particularly in deep-mine pits, such as Lea Hall and Littleton, where opencast coal is absolutely necessary to make the product burnable.

Mr. Woodall: Is the Minister aware that it is widely forecast that opencast mine output is to be increased vastly by private enterprise? Is he further aware that only British Coal has detailed knowledge of the quantity, quality and so on of coal reserves? That knowledge has been gained at vast expense. Will he ensure that any information regarding coal reserves that is sought by private contractors will be made available at a substantial cost commensurate with the cost of obtaining such information?

Mr. Hunt: The level of opencast output has to be determined by the market, subject to the acceptability of individual planning projects as determined through the existing planning system. As I said, British Coal takes its responsibilities as a good neighbour very seriously. Its record demonstrates that in the opencast sector.

Mr. Ashby: Does my hon. Friend accept that opencast mining has a devastating effect on communities? Does he consider that the right policy to adopt is that there should be no more than one opencast mine at a time in an area, not two or three at a time?

Mr. Hunt: The planning procedures ensure that applications to work opencast coal do not go ahead without all the arguments for and against being aired. That allows, in the best possible way, for a balanced judgment to be reached. I add that the opencast executive spends a great deal of time and effort in reducing the impact of its sites and restoring them once coaling has ceased.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware that in our valley the opencast executive is proposing major schemes to tear up both sides of the valley? Is he aware also that the present Secretary of State for Wales overruled his own planning inspector on a scheme in his own constituency on environmental grounds? Is that not a good example for others to follow?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is constantly trying to inject emotion into this afternoon's Question Time. A little reality would be helpful. I think he should recognise that British Coal is spending a considerable amount of time and effort to increase both public and local authority understanding of opencast mining. I commend to him the booklet that British Coal published last week.

Community Insulation Programme

Mr. Patrick Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement concerning the expanded community insulation programme and its implications for jobs.

Mr. Meadowcroft: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received concerning plans to revise the home insulation programme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: Neighbourhood energy action has welcomed my announcement about future arrangements to finance the work of the community insulation projects. By 1988 the number of people employed by projects and learning valuable skills will have increased from 6,000 to 8,000, and over 300,000 homes a year will be being insulated.

Mr. Thompson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply and I welcome the good news about jobs. Does he agree that it is typical of the way that Conservative Governments take action to get on with the job and take a lead in matters concerning energy conservation, job creation and help for pensioners and others with their heating?

Mr. Walker: Yes. It has been a staggering achievement already. Half a million such homes have been insulated, at the same time helping people to obtain new jobs and new skills. But even more remarkable is that in the next couple of years that figure will rise to 300,000 a year. That will mean a great deal of comfort and warmth to elderly and low-income families, and also a great deal of work.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Secretary of State aware that the problems in Leeds with the unions which inhibited work being done on council houses, have been overcome and that the work is now going ahead? The only thing that people are concerned about is that the new regulations will prevent the work being done for the benefit of many people, both in council and private houses. Therefore, will the Secretary of State look again at the regulations and ensure the development of a scheme for the benefit of all?

Mr. Walker: I am anxious to develop the scheme. We have succeeded in developing the scheme to a massive multiple of what existed under the Lib-Lab pact.

Leicester (Heat and Power)

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the latest position concerning the supply and purchase of gas by the Leicester Combined Heat and Power Consortium (Leicester Energy Ltd.).

Mr. David Hunt: The contractual negotiations are, of course, a commercial matter for the Leicester consortium and its fuel suppliers, but I understand that the consortium has not yet finalised arrangements for the purchase of fuel supplies.

Mr. Bruinvels: Is my hon. Friend aware that the £80 million investment by the Leicester Combined Heat and Power Consortium (Leicester Energy Ltd.) is under threat because of the difficulty in negotiating a regular long-term supply from British Gas? Is he aware also that it is now considering purchasing a North sea gas field? Can my hon.

Friend help in some way to bring prosperity to the area and reduce the cost of oil heating by getting British Gas to offer a more reasonable price for the power available?

Mr. Hunt: I hope my hon. Friend will recognise that it is not for Ministers to intervene in negotiations between the Leicester consortium and its fuel suppliers, but he is right to highlight the importance of the scheme. The consortium is to be congratulated on producing a professional report. I hope that the scheme will go ahead if it can be proved to be economically viable. I repeat that if it had not been for my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Spencer), we would not have recognised the importance of the scheme in the first place.

British Coal Enterprise Ltd.

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next proposes to discuss with the chairman of British Coal the progress of British Coal Enterprise Ltd.

Mr. Peter Walker: I discuss the progress of British Coal Enterprise Ltd. with the chairman of the British Coal Corporation whenever it seems appropriate to do so.

Mr. Dormand: Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the chairman that no one really believes the stories about the so-called wild success of British Coal Enterprise Ltd.? Will he also take the opportunity to re-examine the whole scheme with a view to replacing the thousands of jobs that have been lost in mining areas? At the same time, will he stop the closure of pits until alternative employment is available? The situation is desperate in many areas, including my own.

Mr. Walker: Since British Coal Enterprise Ltd. started we have spent £28 million of the £40 million that was allocated, and we have created 16,641 new job opportunities in coal-mining communities. In the northeast, 2,386 new jobs have so far been created and by the time we get through the £40 million, some 25,000 will have been created. This is an outstanding record compared with anything that has happened previously.

Mr. Leigh: When we have won the next election, will my right hon. Friend consider discussing with the chairman of British Coal the extension of real democratic control of the coal miners by working towards a management and work force buy-out?

Mr. Walker: As I said earlier, I am all in favour of those who work in this industry, and who are having such success in increased productivity, having the correct participation in their industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Films

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: asked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on his policy towards fulfilling the commercial potential of films produced by students.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I have ministerial responsibility for the National Film and Television School. The main purpose of the school's film-making is educational. Where opportunities arise, the


films are distributed commercially. A recent example is "Home from the Hill", a successful documentary that was broadcast on BBC television.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I think I am right in saying that the film and television industries derive great benefit from the school and, of course, from its students. What part do the industries play in supporting the school, and should they not play a greater part?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right. The school produces people who are expert in the television and film worlds and provides a fund of talent, especially for the television industry. Therefore, the television industry and the film industry produce about half the funds. I welcome that, and there is scope for more funding on their part.

East Midlands

Mr. Haynes: asked the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the level of financial support for the arts by local authorities in the east midlands.

Mr. Luce: I have no record of recent representations about the level of financial support for the arts by specific local authority areas. The level of support is, of course, within the responsibility of each local authority.

Mr. Haynes: Will the Minister join me in recognising the efforts being made in Nottingham and in my constituency with a view to providing more cinema screens and to encourage Nottingham city council to go along with the appropriate scheme that is on offer? At the same time, will he encourage the British Film Institute, the county council and those authorities that have been involved, and will he provide some money to help them with this wonderful project?

Mr. Luce: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises the way in which the arts are expanding in the east midlands. I welcome his support and encouragement. The Government have injected considerable extra resources into the east midlands regional arts association. Support has gone up by 146 per cent. in real terms since 1979. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises and acknowledges that and that he will encourage his own district authority, Ashficld, to give some money to the arts. It does not do that at present.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In the light of that reply, will my right hon. Friend assure the authorities in the east midlands that he utterly rejects the policy put forward by the Adam Smith Institute and reported in The Daily Telegraph today that public support of the arts should cease? Will he give the House an undertaking that he will continue the Government's supportive policy and that he will build upon it?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising this matter. He served with great distinction as Minister for the Arts. I am glad to reaffirm that the Government believe that taxpayers' support for the arts has an important role to play alongside private sector support.

Mr. Skinner: On this question of the arts and the east midlands, why is it that the Tory Government and other Governments before them never seem to recognise that pit brass bands are part of the culture of that area? Is he aware

that they are spending considerable amounts of money on their instruments as a result of having to lead the marches against this Government's policies over the past 10 years? In the interests of fairness, it is high time that some money was given to them as well as to opera and all the rest.

Mr. Luce: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's new-found interest in the arts, and I acknowledge the important role that brass bands play, particularly in northern areas. I have heard a number of them myself.

"The Milkman's on His Way"

Mr. Moynihan: asked the Minister for the Arts if he has received a copy of the book, "The Milkman's on His Way"; and if he will make a statement on his policy with regard to the availability of this book in public libraries.

Mr. Luce: I have seen this book. In my view it is riot suitable to be stocked in a children's library.

Mr. Moynihan: If the children's sections of libraries such as Haringey library persist in stocking such depraved and corrupt literature, what action can my right hon. Friend, or indeed the ratepayers, take?

Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend's reflections on the book, which does a great deal to undermine family life and moral standards. I feel that it is right for anyone who sees such books to speak up strongly. The ratepayers in individual local authorities are the most important people to make representations to those authorities. I have no powers to intervene. It is up to the ratepayers to make their views known. The matter is in their hands.

Mr. Tony Banks: I have here a letter sent by the chairman of the Conservative party to the "proprietor" of St. Pancras library, at No. 100 Euston road. We all know that the chairman of the Conservative party comes from the "burn-the-books" school of Toryism, but will the Minister give the House an assurance that, in the regrettable and miserable event of his Government being re-elected, that will not form part of their hidden manifesto and that the existence of a "proprietor" of St. Pancras library is not an indication that a future Conservative Government would privatise the libraries?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman seems a hit jittery this afternoon. I regret that he did not join my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) in condemning the books that we see in some boroughs, particularly in London, and I hope that he will reconsider. As for our general public libraries, they are outstanding. They include some of the best libraries in the world, and we have every intention of maintaining them.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my right hon. Friend agree with those local authorities that seem to regard the works of Enid Blyton—which are certainly not great literature—as subversive?

Mr. Luce: It is true that some local authorities have said that Enid Blyton is sexist, which I find extraordinary. Again, however, it is ultimately in the hands of ratepayers to make their views known, and I hope that more of them will do so.

London Local Authorities

Mr Cohen: asked the Minister for the Arts what discussions he has had in the last month with arts organisations in London about the level of financial support from local authorities.

Mr. Luce: I regularly visit arts organisations in London, and their representatives come to see me. We discuss the level of support from local authorities whenever the question of finance arises.

Mr. Cohen: Have not the Tory Government savaged public support for the arts in London by abolishing the GLC and making cuts in local authorities finances? Have not the Liberals, when they have had control in Tower Hamlets, also devastated their local arts? Is it not the case that Londoners who want access to their own culture, recreation and heritage without paying through the nose will have to support Labour?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is living in a world of his own if he thinks that there was a cutback in arts support as a result of the abolition of the GLC or the metropolitan authorities. The opposite happened. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the metropolitan counties throughout the country, he will see that there was a net increase in overall resources made available to the arts as a result of abolition. The local authorities produce more money than before abolition, and it is time that the hon. Gentleman recognised that.

Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that arts organisations in London need funding not only from local authorities but from business sponsorship schemes? Will he report progress on that, and will he say whether the recent reports are true about a deathbed conversion on the part of the Labour party in favour of encouraging business sponsorship of the arts?

Mr. Luce: I agree with my hon. Friend, who repeatedly in the past has supported business sponsorship. It is making an increasingly important contribution to the arts. As a result of the business sponsorship incentive scheme, over 450 new businesses now support the arts. That is yet another important way in which we can add to the overall resources of the arts. As for the Labour party, it is for it to speak for itself, not for me to do that.

Mr. Fisher: I confirm that when they are in office in a month's time the next Labour Government will continue the business incentive sponsorship scheme. However, does the Minister agree that that scheme is totally irrelevant to Tower Hamlets, and will he join me in condemning the actions of the Liberal-controlled group in Tower Hamlets, which has annihilated arts spending there? The Minister is quite wrong to say that his hands are clean, because it was the abolition of the Greater London council that put pressure on that group, and funding for the arts in London will continue to be under threat while this Government are so hostile to local government expenditure.

Mr. Luce: I should start by welcoming most warmly the fact that the hon. Gentleman has changed the views of the Labour party. Last week he opposed the business sponsorship incentive scheme. Now he says positively that the Labour party will support it. Even though it may be a deathbed repentance, I welcome it most warmly. It is absolutely true that the alliance-dominated council in Tower Hamlets has cut back its expenditure on the arts to

such an extent that the Whitechapel art gallery has had its overall finances reduced and the Half Moon theatre has also had its finances reduced. I very much regret that.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Drug Addiction

Sir David Price: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on measures to combat drug addiction within the Civil Service.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): All the evidence presently available suggests that drug misuse in the Civil Service is on a very small scale. But we do not feel we can be complacent. A group of officials from my Department and others will shortly be meeting representatives of the Civil Service trades unions to review the evidence, draft policy guidance to Departments and offer advice to Civil Service managers.

Sir David Price: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that, as there are between 60,000 and 100,000 known drug addicts in this country, it is not unreasonable to assume that some of them are to be found in every large organisation? The Civil Service employs over 600,000 people. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that adequate counselling and help are being provided for those who may take to drugs? He will agree that it is one of the most intractable problems that is facing every part of this country.

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He should know—perhaps he does know—that the level of drug misuse in the Civil Service is extremely low. Last year there were only six reported cases of drugs misuse. That shows how small the problem is. However, as it is a widespread problem, it is right that the management of the Civil Service should have guidance at its disposal to make sure that we can deal with these problems as they arise.

Northern Region (Job Dispersal)

Mr. Dormand: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he has any plans for the transfer of Civil Service posts to the northern region; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Luce: The DHSS proposes to centralise certain benefit work in Newcastle from local offices. This relocation will increase its work force in Newcastle by at least 300 posts. The needs of the regions will continue to be taken into account whenever the question of location of new work or relocation of existing work arises.

Mr. Dormand: Is it not a fact that for the eight years that this Government have been in power they have shed an ocean of crocodile tears about the high unemployment in the northern region? Their hypocrisy has been demonstrated by the fact that during that period they have deliberately decided not to transfer a single Civil Service post to the north. Will the Minister take down from the shelf the Hardman committee report and see just how strong is the case for dispersal to the northern region?

Mr. Luce: I know of the hon. Gentleman's persistent interest in this question, and I had hoped that he would be pleased by the announcement that I have just made of


300 additional jobs. The hon. Gentleman knows that our dispersal policy is very nearly completed and that 6,000 posts are being dispersed to other parts of the country. I acknowledge that they have not gone to the northern area; they have gone to Scotland and to other parts of the country, because the northern area, compared with other areas, has a high proportion of civil servants to the total number of the working population. Our dispersal and relocation policies mean that other jobs will be going both to his area and to other areas.

Recruitment

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what measures he is taking to ensure the adequacy of recruitment methods of civil servants for the 21st century.

Mr. Luce: Methods of recruitment to the Civil Service are revised as the tasks required of civil servants and the skills and qualities they need change. Within the Civil Service Commission, the recruitment research unit is actively engaged in reviewing the effectiveness of existing procedures and developing improved procedures. Underlying these changes is a continuing commitment to the fundamentals of fair and open competition and selection on merit.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. However, is he aware that concern has been expressed about bias in Civil Service recruitment procedures? Can my right lion. Friend assure the House that there is no bias—for example, that the Oxbridge syndrome does not come into play? Can he give us an absolute assurance that that does not apply to what I believe is known as the fast track?

Mr. Luce: I think that the commission goes out of its way to get across to all sections of the community the opportunities available in the Civil Service. On my hon. Friend's last question, he will be interested to note that the proportion of Oxbridge graduates who enter the highflying part of the Civil Service decreased from 75 per cent. in 1982 to 46 per cent. in 1986. That indicates that we are getting an intake of civil servants from a much wider background than previously.

Dr. McDonald: Is the Minister aware that, to ensure good recruitment to the Civil Service, the Government must appear to be a good employer? Is he further aware that after eight years of mismanagement including the dismantling of the pay research unit, low pay and under-staffing, and capped by the abolition of trade union rights at GCHQ, the Government cannot convince anyone that they will be a good employer of civil servants in future? Is that not a further reason for the rejection of the Government at the polls on 11 June?

Mr. Luce: I think that the hon. Lady is indulging in a little wishful thinking. Our record of managing the Civil Service is remarkable. There has been a great improvement in the efficiency and professionalism of the service. Its staff has been reduced to fewer than 600,000, but it is a streamlined, dedicated and loyal service.[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are very important questions.

Women (Public Appointments)

Mr. Nicholas Baker: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he is taking to ensure that a large proportion of women are appointed to public bodies.

Mr. Luce: The public appointments unit is currently processing the list of more than 600 women compiled by the campaign for women into public life. The unit will put these names forward to Departments whenever suitable opportunities arise, together with names of other women received following recent publicity for the work of the unit.

Mr. Baker: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the number of women in the Civil Service is increasing? Does he share my hope that the number of women in the Civil Service and in public life will continue to increase after the next general election?

Mr. Luce: I am glad that the public appointments unit, which puts names forward for non-departmental public bodies, has received an increasing number of women's names, thanks to the co-operation of a number of sources, including hon. Members. Clearly, the Government will continue to support all the efforts being made to increase the number of women able to serve in public life

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only 14 per cent. of the Prime Minister's appointments to public bodies have been of women? Es he further aware—although this is not his direct responsibility—that Britain has only two women ambassadors throughout the world? Does that not show that the Prime Minister and the Conservative Government have betrayed women, just as they have betrayed all other categories of our society?

Mr. Luce: The more questions the hon. Gentleman asks, the more excitable he becomes. The proportion of women in non-departmental public bodies is now 19 per cent. and not 14 per cent., and thanks to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last autumn to raise interest, the public appointments unit now has far more women's names.

Top Jobs (Report)

Mr. Gerald Howarth: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what action he proposes to take following the report of the Royal Institute of Public Administration on top jobs, a copy of which has been sent to him.

Mr. Luce: I welcome the RIPA report as a useful contribution to the continuing debate about the work of central Government. It mirrors in a number of respects the conclusions reached by the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service a year ago, to which the Government's response was presented to Parliament last July.

Mr. Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is of great benefit to civil servants that they should enjoy the process of interchange on secondment with outside bodies, particularly with industry? Will he confirm that that remains, and will remain after the next general election, the Government's policy? What is the rate of inward secondment to the Civil Service?

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to attach importance to inward and outward secondments to the Civil Service. That is very much at the heart of the Government's policy


on the Civil Service. I am pleased to be able of announce that in 1986 outward secondment has gone up from 229

to 280 people and inward secondment has gone up from 157 to 189 people. That shows that we are building on our policy of secondment.

Business of the House

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I should like to make a brief business statement.
In the light of the announcement earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the business for the remainder of the week will be rearranged. I propose to make a further statement to the House later today, following discussions through the usual channels.

Mr. Peter Shore: We very much welcome the circumstances that have brought the right hon. Gentleman to the House, and we shall look forward to his further statement at 7 o'clock this evening.

Mr. John Stokes: With regard to the coming struggle, to which Conservative Members look forward with relish, does my right hon. Friend recall the words of Disraeli and Lord Randolph Churchill, "Trust the people"? That is exactly what we are going to do.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: With reference to the business provisionally being considered through the usual channels for the remainder of the week, will the Leader of the House see whether he can transfer the Territorial Sea Bill debate from Wednesday to Tuesday, which may be more convenient for some hon. Members with a special interest in that legislation?

Mr. Biffen: Most certainly.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have not heard the announcement which he said my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made? But, in so far as my right hon. Friend has now conveyed it to me, may I—I think that the House agrees—congratulate him on the way in

which he has answered our questions during business time throughout this Parliament'? However, I am sorry that he seems to have fallen down in his last statement. I hope that he realises that, by announcing the election for June, he is taking from me and from many of my colleagues our summer holiday pay.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Does the rearrangement of business for the rest of this week include the rearrangement of today's business?

Mr. Biffen: No. It is hoped that today's business will stand as announced last Thursday.

Sir Peter Emery: May I presume that, among the immensely important business that will have to be rearranged, my right hon. Friend will make certain that we have a debate on the Procedure Committee's reports?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that I can arrange for that to be considered, but it is a matter of travelling hopefully rather than expectantly.

Mr. David Alton: Does the Leader of the House think that it is legitimate for the guillotine to be used on legislation as important as the Scottish rates legislation? Does he agree that, if we had fixed-term Parliaments, the Government would not find themselves in the position of having to bludgeon the House into ramming through important legislation of this kind?

Mr. Biffen: The decision of the House to provide for a guillotine motion on the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill was taken some weeks ago.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not know what the rearrangement of business will be. I am sure that the House would agree that since this is a private Members' day we should reserve further questions until later.

Local Authority Expenditure (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission. Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on local authority budgets and rates for 1987–88.
Local authorities in Scotland have budgeted to spend £122·1 million or 3·7 per cent. over guidelines in 1987–88 and have determined rates which will, on average, increase domestic rate bills by 15 per cent. For ratepayers in some areas, the increase is much higher. This is disappointing and unsatisfactory. The rate support grant settlement was a very generous one, intended to allow local authorities generally to maintain real levels of spending without substantial rate increases. However, too many authorities have planned for quite unacceptable levels of growth.
After consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, I have therefore decided that, to encourage those authorities with planned overspends to reconsider their budgets, there will be grant penalties for overspending on a tariff which starts at grant loss of 70 per cent. of overspend, rising to 120 per cent. for a 2·5 per cent. overspend. Above 2·5 per cent. the rate of penalty increases to 140 per cent. for a 3 per cent. overspend, and then to 175 per cent. for a 3·5 per cent. overspend or above. The rate of increase between each of these points is even. On the basis of planned expenditure, the total penalty will be £202 million, though penalties will subsequently be adjusted in the light of actual expenditure, and it is therefore open to authorities to reduce their liability to penalty, or to recover penalties completely, by reducing their expenditure. I hope that many authorities will do so, and it is to assist them in doing so that I am making this announcement of our intentions.
I am pleased to note that, for 1986–87, 40 authorities have provisional outturns within guidelines, and a number of authorities which planned to spend over guidelines have reduced their expenditure on outturn. As a result, some £28 million in grant penalties levied in 1986–87 will be returned to the authorities concerned.
I am today laying the necessary rate support grant order in respect of grant reductions in 1987–88, and repayments for 1986–87. A circular is being sent to all local authorities giving them the details.
Grant penalties will apply to all authorities planning to overspend. I have also considered the special problems facing ratepayers in the areas of those authorities which are planning the most substantial expenditure excesses over guideline. As a result I have decided to initiate action in terms of section 5 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 in respect of Lothian regional council, Clackmannan district council and the city of Edinburgh district council on the ground that their planned expenditure for 1987–88 is excessive and unreasonable. Letters have today been sent to the three councils proposing rate reductions of 3·9p, 2·8p and 2·8p respectively, and inviting each to make representations about the proposed reduction. If implemented, my proposals would result in a reduction in the average domestic rate bill of £50·77 in Edinburgh, 08·59 in other parts of Lothian region, and £16·61 in Clackmannan.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I cannot congratulate the Secretary of State on his timing, but I

suspect that it is not fortuitous. I doubt whether the fact that this statement is coming two months earlier than normal is a measure of increasing efficiency in the Scottish Office. However, it may have a great deal to do with coming events.
s
The penalty that has been announced is unashamedly linked to guidelines. I can remember—no doubt the Secretary of State can also—the happy days when we talked about indicative guidelines. That adjective seems peculiarly inappropriate now that the guideline is a simple straightforward benchmark for punitive action by the Government against any council that meets with their displeasure.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that last year Scottish local authorities were 3·9 per cent. over guidelines and attracted a penalty of £125 million, and that this year they are 3·7 per cent. over guidelines but are attracting a penalty of £202 million? In other words, the excess over guidelines is down, but the penalty has been increased by 62 per cent. Will the Secretary of State explain why this particularly vindictive line has been taken on this occasion? Will he confirm that, in effect, we are nearly returning to the penalty range of 1985–86 with the small exception that the peak is now 175 per cent. penalty while the worst that was managed in the past was 170 per cent.?
Does the Secretary of State accept that three councils are being picked out for special, and some would say vindictive, treatment? Is it not true that Edinburgh will be left with no rate support grant settlement and that its loss will be £12·5 million, that Clackmannan will be left with no rate support grant money this year and that Lothian will lose £51 million? If the councils cut their budgets and planned expenditure as the Secretary of State is instructing, will he be prepared to adjust their general penalty at that point, or will they be left to wait for a long time for the repayment which would then be due to them?
Will the Secretary of State explain why Lothian, for example, is being hit in this way when the norm for the calculation over guidelines is budget plus 3·75 per cent. and Lothian's guidelines are budget plus 2 per cent.? To put the matter into perspective, will he comment on the fact that, while Lothian is 7·4 per cent. over guidelines, last year's budget of a Tory administration was 6·6 per cent. over guidelines in itself? Since then Lothian council has inherited substantial difficulties from that Conservative administration which cynically raided balances in a way which would be strenuously criticised if that policy had been followed by other councils.
Are we not seeing a further cut in Government support for local services? If the penalties are exacted in full, will that not bring down the rate support grant percentage from 55·6 per cent. to a new low of about 50 per cent.? Is not this part of a long and dreary process which since 1979–80 has caused the RSG per head to fall by 11 per cent. in Scotland, by 50·9 per cent. in Clackmannan and by 18·3 per cent. in Lothian, according to the Secretary of State's figures in a parliamentary answer?
Will the Secretary of State now accept, as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment south of the border accepted at Question Time on 1 April, that there has been a deliberate Government policy to shift the burden of local services from the Exchequer to ratepayers, that Scottish ratepayers have been damagingly hit by that policy, and that Ministers have been reluctant to accept that fact?

Mr. Rifkind: Listening to the hon. Gentleman's protestations, one could be forgiven for not realising that this year we had the most generous RSG provision, with no change in the grant percentage, compared with many previous years. Precisely because local authorities, instead of passing on that benefit to their ratepayers, have chosen excessive growth in expenditure, it is necessary for me to come to the Dispatch Box today.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the timing of the statement. He must know perfectly well that local authorities have often pressed for such statements to be made at the earliest possible date. For him to complain because we are able to make a statement at an early date shows that it is difficult to please him whatever one seeks to do.
The hon. Gentleman compared the penalties proposed this year with those for last year. However, he does not draw attention to the fact that this year we have increased public expenditure provision for local authorities by no less than 9·5 per cent. and that the guidelines for local authorities took account of their budgets last year which were then increased to take account of inflation, the teachers' pay settlement and other matters. For local authorities to respond with excessive expenditure in the light of that provision justifies a severe response. It is sad to reflect that when we imposed a heavy tariff there were reductions in excessive expenditure, but when, over the last year, we adopted a more gentle approach, followed by a generous RSG provision, the response from a number of local authorities was as we have described.
As for the individual authorities to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) referred, I remind him that Edinburgh district council is proposing expenditure which is no less than 24·7 per cent. in excess of its guidelines. Likewise, Clackmannan is 21 per cent. in excess of its guideline. which is by far the largest excess for district councils.
The hon. Member for Garscadden asked whether the penalty would be adjusted if authorities responded to what is being proposed and reduced their budgets. I am prepared to give consideration to that possibility.
The hon. Gentleman protested on behalf of Lothian regional council and implied that its proposals for a rates increase which verges on 30 per cent. is reasonable and not excessive. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Lothian regional council, despite improvements in its guideline, is £29·3 million in excess of its guideline. Its excess over assessed need is £61·5 million or 16·9 per cent. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that if he lived in Edinburgh or Lothian he might not be so friendly towards Lothian as he presently feels able to be.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private Members' day, so I ask for succinct questions.

Sir Alex Fletcher: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed in Edinburgh, particularly by the many ratepayers who are suffering severe hardship because of the imposition of a 30 per cent. rates increase by the Labour authorities? My right hon. and learned Friend said that, following these measures, the average domestic ratepayer will benefit by about £50. What benefits will accrue to small businesses in Edinburgh, such as shopkeepers, as a result of this action?

Mr. Rifkind: It is difficult to give an exact figure because the range of businesses varies. For example, a Princes street store may experience a reduction of as much as £60,000. Clearly that will have a significant impact for the good of the economy of the city, with corresponding benefits for employment in many stores. Other shops and businesses will benefit significantly, but the size of the benefit will depend on the size of the present rates demands.

Sir Russell Johnston: Let me be more direct than the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). This announcement, which has been made on the day that the election has been announced, will be seen as blatant bribery which is designed to save the seats of Ministers and ex-Ministers in Edinburgh. If that is not true, it is designed to force Edinburgh city to give tip the pensioners' free travel concession. What else is it for?
Is the Secretary of State aware that, despite what he said in the earlier part of his statement, the rate support grant settlement in the named rate-capped authorities was not generous? The right hon. Gentleman should have renegotiated the rate support grant levels with the authorities in question because what he is doing in mid-budgetary term will cause chaos and lead to drastic cuts in services.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman does not have the slightest basis for his final comment. He should know perfectly well that, when selective action has been taken in the past, not only has it not led to the predicted chaos—such predictions are always made on such occasions—but the ratepayers have benefited from repayments and the local authorities, which have made great protestations about the enormous hardship to the local community, have ended up with egg on their face.
Local authorities will have, as is normal, an opportunity to comment and make representations to the Scottish Office on these proposals. The Government have made it abundantly clear that they are prepared to take action to assist ratepayers and to deal with excessive and unreasonable expenditure. This is not the first year in which we have used or applied such powers. For the hon. Gentleman to impute other motives is unworthy of him.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: The generous RSG settlement that my right hon. and learned Friend announced earlier this year is appreciated, but is he aware that constituencies and district councils such as mine in Banff and Buchan find considerable difficulty in meeting the guidelines? Will my right hon. and learned Friend say that, if the district council in Banff and Buchan can get itself back into guideline during the course of this year, its ratepayers will benefit considerably from a repayment in the next year?

Mr. Rifkind: As I have announced today, we are repaying £20 million worth of rate support grant because in the course of the previous year some authorities were able to reduce their excess spending. In the case of my hon. Friend's district council, the excess over guideline is only 1·52 per cent., or about £81,000, so I very much hope that it will be able to recover any grant loss arising from that.

Mr. Norman Hogg: The Secretary of State is fond of saying that he has been generous to local government in rate support grant


settlement, but he has been directly challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) about whether his statement will in fact reduce overall rate support grant for the current financial year. Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer that point?
Secondly, as the Government have little mandate in the constituencies in which the authorities concerned operate and could not even field a full complement of candidates for those authorities, one wonders what authority the Secretary of State has for his excessive attack on them.

Mr. Rifkind: I am not clear what mandate the ruling councils in Edinburgh, Lothian or Clackmannan had for rates increases of the kind proposed. I do not recall those proposals being put to the electorate at the relevant time. As for the implications for rate support grant, I have today proposed reductions in grant for certain individual authorities, but whether they lose grant will depend entirely on how they respond. If they reduce their expenditure, there will be no reduction in grant. If they refuse to do so, they will have only themselves to blame.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Government provide more than half the cost of local government expenditure and that the provision was increased this year by more than double the increase in prices generally? Does he agree that his statement about the overspending authorities shows that so long as there is a rating system the Labour party will abuse it? Is that not an urgent reason to ensure that proceedings on the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill are completed before this Parliament ends?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree, of course, with my hon. Friend's final comment. With regard to his earlier remarks, I must point out that last year some 40 authorities were able to keep their expenditure within guidelines and suffered no loss through grant penalty. If about two thirds of the authorities could achieve that in a year in which the rate support grant settlement was less generous than this year, there is no excuse for those which have declined to move in the same direction.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Secretary of State confirm that what he calls excess expenditure is adequate fire cover, a decent level of policing, a good staff-pupil ratio in schools, proper provision for the elderly and other vital services? Does he agree that his guidelines are entirely arbitrary and discriminatory and that there are no objective bases whatever for them, and does he admit that his announcement today picking on certain authorities has more to do with the sweaty palms that he and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), and his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Sir A. Fletcher) have because they know that they are about to be replaced by Mark Lazarowicz, Nigel Griffiths and Alastair Darling respectively and that the House and the country will be better places as a result?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for reminding him of the time when he predicted that he would replace me as Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands. After an unsuccessful attempt to achieve that, the hon. Gentleman

fled to his present constituency and was never seen again in the Scottish capital. If the hon. Gentleman is as confident as he claims to be, I am sure that my Labour opponent, Mr. Lazarowicz, will be happy to change places with him so that the hon. Gentleman himself can stand against me in my constituency.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that in the past couple of weeks rate demands have been popping through the letter boxes in Tayside. Does he agree that if the Conservatives had remained in office the increase would have been about 2p but that it is substantially greater because the Labour party and the Scottish National party know only how to spend other people's money? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this makes it essential to change the way in which we fund local government and to keep control of profligate authorities?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. Until we have a system of local authority finance in which all who benefit from local services make a contribution towards them through funds raised locally, we cannot expect to have genuine accountability. That is why we hope that the community charge legislation will be enacted in the course of this week, and why comparable proposals for England and Wales are being put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Secretary of State should know that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) got it wrong. The SNP had nothing to do with rate levels in Tayside.

Mr. Bill Walker: Its members voted to keep Labour in office.

Mr. Ross: Absolutely.
If the budget that was put forward before the election by the Tory administration on Tayside had been implemented, there would have been a massive reduction in services for which the council had not budgeted. Rather than announcing penalties today, would it not have made more sense for the Secertary of State to make a more positive response to Tayside regional council's request for £5 million for the water front project, which the Secretary of State claimed to support, so that it could have proceeded?

Mr. Rifkind: The way in which Tayside regional council uses the resources available to it and that council's priorites are a matter for it. Like other local authorities in Scotland, Tayside was the beneficiary of a generous rate support grant settlement, and of guidelines that were considerably in excess of its budget last year. I said earlier that overall provision to local authorities was 9·5 per cent. more than last year's. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that local authorities that insist on overspending have only themselves to blame if they forfeit grant as a consequence.

Mr. Michael Hirst: Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the Opposition that, in spite of constant exhortations to restraint, local government spending in volume terms is higher today than in 1979? All my constituents are facing substantial rates increases because of Strathclyde council's continuing failure to live within its means and to apply Government guidelines to its expenditure.
Is it not true that Labour authorities mean high rates, and it is only when the community charge is introduced that we shall have the accountability that will stop that?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Last year, local authority volume expenditure was, for the first time, below 1979 levels.

Mr. Gordon Brown: The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden is wrong.

Mr. Rifkind: He is not wrong. This year, as a response to the generous provision of rate support grant settlement, volume expenditure is now back again above 1979 levels, thereby illustrating that the high rates increases were not because of the inadequacy of Government support but because local authorities have chosen to go for growth in expenditure as a consequence of central Government support.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the cut in the rate support grant for Clackmannan comes at a time when it has been clawing its way into a position that is comparable with other authorities of similar size? It is the smallest authority in Scotland and suffers from the problems of diseconomies of scale. The bludgeon that the Minister is applying to that small authority this year will result in a massive cut in services at a time when the authority is trying to compensate for the follies of the Government's policies elsewhere in the economy.

Mr. Rifkind: I might have more sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman has said if I did not know that the Clackmannan district council was proposing growth in its leisure and recreation expenditure of no less that 75·5 per cent.

Mr. O'Neill: There is 25 per cent. unemployment there.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are other authorities in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom that have unemployment problems, but a proposed expenditure increase of that kind and in that area seems extraordinary. It is, of course, for Clackmannan to decide, within an overall total, what its priorities are, but I use that as an illustration of the difficulties that Clackmannan's ratepayers and others are facing.

Asylum Seekers (Heathrow)

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the refusal of the Home Office to refer the refugee applications of 36 Iraqi Kurds held at terminal 2, Heathrow to the United Kingdom Immigration Advisory Service, the circumstances that led to suicide attempts by some of the asylum seekers, and their continued unauthorised detention.
Last weekend, three groups of 12 Iraqi-Kurdish people arrived at Heathrow airport. They escaped from Iraq into Syria and boarded a plane to the United Kingdom. They travelled on Iraqi passports. When they arrived at Heathrow, they sought political asylum at the airport and asked that their case be considered. The refusal of the immigration officers to grant them political asylum led to removal directions being placed on them to leave this country. I and other hon. Members attempted to put stops on their removal over the weekend, but our efforts were not successful.
There were then a number of protests by the Iraqi Kurds, including two suicide attempts that resulted in two of the Iraqi Kurds being taken to nearby hospitals while the remainder were held either at the police station at Heathrow or at the terminal 2 immigration office. They have not been removed from this country and they are still being held at the airport. They then requested through their friends that their case be referred to the United Kingdom Immigration Advisory Service. This request was denied by the immigration officers concerned, and the denial was confirmed by the Home Office by telephone calls to them today.
I realise that the House has many things to discuss this week, but I feel that this matter is extremely important. First, if these Iraqi Kurds are returned to Syria there is clearly a danger that they would be returned to Iraq, where they would be wanted by the Iraqi Government. 'This means that they would be put in enormous danger of their lives. Secondly, the immigration service at Heathrow airport—this should be a matter of great concern to Parliament—appears to be operating the terms of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill in their entirety and in detail when that measure has not passed through all its stages in Parliament and has not received Royal Assent; and in the light of the business statement that we have heard today, it is unlikely that it will be passed into law this week. This calls into question the operation of the immigration service and the safety of the 36 Iraqi Kurds concerned.
A debate would give the Home Secretary the opportunity to explain to the House what his attitude is towards these genuine asylum seekers and whether he is prepared to consider their case individually, which he is bound to do within the terms of the 1951 Geneva convention, of which the United Kingdom is a signatory.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the refusal of the Home Office to refer the refugee applications of 36 Iraqi Kurds held at terminal 2, Heathrow


to the UKIAS, the circumstances that led to suicide attempts by some of the asylum seekers, and their continued unauthorised detention.
I have listened with great concern to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,

That the Value Added Tax (Construction of Buildings) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.[Mr. Lightbown].

The Quality of Life

Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That this House affirms the overwhelming need to improve the quality of life of millions of citizens in the United Kingdom by pursuing progressive policies for creating more jobs, expanding the National Health Service, increasing investment in housing and schools, and providing higher pensions; contrasts these objectives with the hidden agenda of the Conservative Party in relation to the extension of value-added tax, further contraction of health and social services, the imposition of a workfare scheme for the unemployed, and an accelerated withdrawal of the state from its role as a protector of the weak; and notes that these intentions will be carefully concealed from voters during the general election campaign, since their implementation would be seen as compounding the misery and widening the social divisions already inflicted upon the British people during the last eight years.
The House will have noted that a motion in the same terms appears on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). I am pleased to have won a place in the ballot because it means that I shall set the agenda in the House for the next three hours. That gives me the opportunity in the dying days of this Parliament to draw attention to the damaging and debilitating demeanour of this Tory Government that has diminished the quality of life for millions of people in our land. My winning of the ballot gives me the opportunity to present some of the alternative and progressive policies that the Labour party will be presenting in the forthcoming general election. Those policies will enhance the quality of life for our citizens and give hope for the future based on fairness and freedom rather than greed and injustice.
It is clear that the Prime Minister and the Conservative party and its cronies think that they will easily win the forthcoming general election. They are wrong.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am sorry to intervene at this early stage in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I wonder whether he will be telling us during his speech why it is that the lowest quality of life and the deprivation that has ensued over the past four or five years has been mainly in Labour local authority areas—in fact, essentially in Labour local authority areas.

Mr. Cohen: Mainly because Conservatives just do not care about such areas and tighten the screws on them. I shall be dealing with such issues.
The Conservative party is wrong if it thinks that it will win the next general election easily. It may have the media and the bandwagon-inducing opinion polls sewn up and it may have an on-tick mini boom strictly for the duration of the election to try to fool the voters, but it will be unable to hide the truth.
There are already millions of victims of the Government's policies. There are 2·5 million families in England alone who are living in seriously substandard dwellings. There are 3·5 million who are unemployed. There are 4·5 million victims of recorded crime—in reality, there are over 8 million such victims. The total has increased by 50 per cent. as this allegedly law-and-order Government have steadily and increasingly lost control. There are 17 million people living in, or on the margins of, poverty. There are 10 million pensioners who have lost about £9 a week because the Government broke the Labour Government's pension rises formula. There are 50


million or more who rely solely on the National Health Service and who have seen it being eroded. A further 'Tory term in government would not be more of the same; it would be much worse. As William Keegan wrote in The Observer on 3 May,
At the very least, those who have paid the costs are entitled to share in whatever gains there prove to be in the end.
That is not the Government's attitude. A vote for a third term of Tory government will be regarded as a ringing endorsement of a policy to bash the victims even harder.
Let us be blunt. Another Tory Government would mean more factory closures, more hospitals being shut, more people left to rot on the dole, more made homeless and more condemned to poverty. This would happen in all sorts of ways and it is only right that the British people should know what is in store for them in the Tories hidden manifesto. For a start, there will be large rises in value added tax. The Conservatives said in 1979 that they had no intention of doubling VAT, but when they came into office they increased it immediately from 8 per cent. to 15 per cent.
In my view, VAT will soon be increased to 25 per cent. if the Tories are returned to office, and it will be harmonised with the EEC. That is what the Prime Minister's representative at the EEC, Lord Cockfield, is pressing for. That means VAT on food, children's clothes, shoes, heating and newspapers. It could mean as much as an additional £10 a week on the average family's bill. Especially hard hit will be the low taxpayer or non-taxpayer. He will pay a greater proportion of his income in taxation while the rich will pay less. Such a rise in VAT would inevitably increase inflation.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us from which authority this information comes? Will he quote his exact source so that we may verify it? None of us is aware of it.

Mr. Cohen: There has been a fracas at the European Parliament about it. Lord Cockfield has suddenly gone silent about it, but he has let his intentions be known. He favours harmonisation, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer made similar statements in The Guardian in February. I can give the hon. Gentleman the relevant date when I have resumed my seat. The Chancellor has talked about expanding the base for VAT, and that is one of the likelihoods.
There will be big increases in rents—probably as much as £12 a week for council tenants. Such increases will give the green light to private landlords to follow suit. As existing controls are weakened, Rachmanism and thuggery will re-emerge to scar the face of private landlordism.
Mortgage payers will witness a speedy return to high interest rates. Such interest rates have been the hallmark of Tory economic policy outside election periods. There will also be a new poll tax. However, the Conservatives have already increased rates for every family by £4 per week as a result of cuts in rate support grant and penalties imposed on local authorities and their ratepayers. In my borough of Waltham Forest, £40 million has been stolen in that way. On top of such penalties the new poll tax will mean additional charges of £4·17 for an average family and £6·32 for a pensioner couple.

Mr. Marlow: Come on!

Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman may wish to make a comment, and I shall give him and his hon. Friends an opportunity to intervene if they are prepared to justify how a couple relying on a state pension and who live in a small home in my constituency must pay at the same level of rates as the Prime Minister and Denis in their fortress in Dulwich. Can they justify that? They are keeping quiet because it is unjustifiable.
Prescription charges have gone up twelvefold since 1979. That shows that there is no limit to Conservative callousness to tax the sick. A third Tory term will mean an extra £4 a week to cover the cost of school meals for a family with two children. Water rates have already increased unnecessarily above the rate of inflation, but they will rocket even further if water is privatised and run for profit.
Charges for buses and trains will also increase as the impact of privatisation and the halving of subsidies is felt. The electricity and gas industries will make up for holding back this year. They have kept their prices down AS their contribution to the Conservatives' election efforts. However, in the earlier years of the Tory Administration their charges went up above the rate of inflation and hurt a lot of pensioners in the process.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for missing his opening remarks. I wonder whether he can explain what he is doing for his constituents who are suffering the imposition of a 62·8 per cent. rate increase. That increase is exceeded only by that of the long-suffering people of Ealing, who have faced a 65 per cent. rate increase. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, when I was leading a march of some 4,000 people demonstrating against Ealing council's disgusting behaviour, there were also marches being held in his constituency? This is a serious state of affairs. Pensioners and disabled people in my constituency are continually in tears because they cannot pay the council's horrendous demands. Is not the position he same in his constituency?

Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman was obviously not present when I spoke of the £40 million stolen by the Government as the result of cuts in rate support grant and penalties imposed on local authorities. I can prove that figure because I have a letter from the borough treasurer quoting it. I can give the hon. Gentleman a breakdown of that £40 million. When the cut in rate support grant was mooted in the House, I called for the Secretary of State for the Environment to do something to give back some of the money. He refused and displayed a callous indifference to the problem. That is the reality.
It is no good the hon. Member for Ealing, North (M r. Greenway) or his hon. Friends pretending to be the champions of the ratepayers in my borough or in Ealing when the Government have stolen such sums of money. The Government are charging ratepayers £1·64 for every £1 spent by local authorities.

Mr. Greenway: rose——

Mr. Cohen: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question clearly and I will not give way.
The nation faces increased charges, and a 2p reduction in income tax pales in comparison to the pounds that will be taken from people in meeting their extra bills. The greedy stand to gain if the Tories win. The richest 5 per cent. of the land have already been given an extra £3·6


billion a year. That is only a start. A blind eye will, once again, be turned towards selfish, anti-social speculation and big City fraud. The majority of people will be allowed their rights under the Tories only if they can afford to pay for them. Such is the Tory dream. It is a nightmare for the rest of us.
There will be a further rundown in the state education system. Vouchers will be introduced to speed the creaming off of resources and the school closure programme. On 8 May, The Independent referred to a recently issued Department of Education and Science circular which said that, by 1991, the authorities must close about 2,000 schools. Teachers and parents will be treated with even more contempt than they are at present. The majority of children will be confined to a less than fair start in life. Students will be given loans instead of grants. Higher education will be put further out of the reach of many youngsters because of the cuts.
Further cuts are planned for the local authorities and other public providers. Community care for the elderly, for people with disabilities and for those who would otherwise be institutionalised will become a myth. Such care will be rationed and will not be available in many parts of the country. Home helps and meals on wheels will not be provided.
Resources for the National Health Service will be cut and it will become more dependent on charity for life-saving equipment. Rail and bus routes all over the country will face the axe. The National Health Service and the health of the nation have been seriously damaged by the Conservative Government. More than 220 hospitals have been closed. The availability of hospital beds has fallen by more than 10 per cent. There has been a quicker turnover of patients. Patients are thrown out of hospital before they have received proper treatment and there is now a higher level of readmissions. Hospital waiting lists have increased by 14 per cent.
The National Health Service also faces a severe nursing crisis because of poor pay. On 1 May, the Yellow Advertiser, my local paper, referred to the nursing crisis and said:
Health chiefs fear the increase, which is above the rate of inflation, may be just a flash in the pan"—
that is all too true—
and not enough to attract more nurses to the district.
It reported that Waltham Forest has more than 700 vacancies for nurses on its books. Low rates of pay and working conditions have been blamed for these shortages. That paper fears that if staff problems get worse the quality of service given to patients could be badly affected. Operating time has already been restricted because of the shortage of theatre nurses. Before last week's rise, a fully trained staff nurse with three years' experience was earning £20 or £30 less than the national average.
It is no accident that Britain has gone to the top 'of the poor health league of countries in the industrialised world. We are at the top of the league for deaths from heart disease and Britain has a high incidence of cancer. The Tory rundown of the NHS is out of step with the needs of our people.
In addition, a number of independent reports have clearly stated the cause of the unnecessary deaths and incidence of ill health in Britain. The Church of England report "Faith in the City" and the Black report found that

the most important determinants of ill health were poor housing, particularly in the devastated economies of the inner cities and the bleak housing estates of the outer cities, unemployment, and poor nutrition. There was evidence that poor families are forced to cut down on food to make ends meet. There was also evidence that a dangerous environment, particularly because of a lack of suitable play areas for children, leading to road accidents is the main cause of death among young people.
A report was produced by the Health Education Council, but it was stifled by the Government just a month ago. It contained damning, conclusive evidence against the Government. The poorer one is, the less healthy one is. The situation has got worse under the Government. People in lowly occupations are twice as likely to die before retirement than professional people. The babies of fathers who have unskilled jobs run twice the risk of stillbirth and death before their first birthday. The children of poor parents have lower birth rates, shorter stature and poorer health. Unemployed people have poorer health than those who are in work.
Last Friday, the BMA's science and education board working party produced a report on deprivation and ill-health. It was quoted in detail in The Independent. It stated:
Unemployment, poor housing, and low incomes are causing a substantial amount of ill-health for millions of people in Britain.
It went on to state:
Inequalities so severe as to give rise to pronounced effects on health seem to us indefensible.
That was stated by the BMA, not a politically-biased body.
The newspaper went on to outline the main factors:
Housing. Homes which are damp, cold and insanitary directly cause illnesses; overcrowding causes stress and anxiety which can lead to mental illness.
Unemployment. The paper reports 'clear evidence' that unemployment is associated with higher mortality rates, and that unemployed people are more vulnerable to self-destructive behaviour, ranging from suicide to drug-taking. School leavers who went on the dole were found to have worse mental health than fellow-former pupils who found work, and… some psychiatric illness is directly caused by unemployment.
Low income. DHSS figures show almost nine million people were living at or below the supplementary benefit income level in 1983.
The Government fiddled the later figures. They are substantially more than that. The article went on:
The unemployed and pensioners, in particular, find great difficulty in getting good housing and healthy food. They are forced to buy the cheapest and least nourishing foods and their children are reported to suffer under-nutrition, stunted growth, and health problems brought on by obesity"—
it is an obscenity—
caused by fatty food.
Other areas of deprivation affecting health are poor education, which reduces an individual's chances of getting a better income, and racial discrimination, which forces people into accepting poorer housing and income.
The report went on to urge that more money
should he spent on housing, financial support for low-income groups, health education and reorganising the NHS so that it was more accessible to the deprived.
The Government will have to answer to that report in the general election. It will certainly become an important issue.
I am concerned about diet. I have raised the matter before in the House. I presented a petition for action for a healthier diet. It is well known what is induced by a poor


diet. Factors include excess fat, sugar, salt, lack of fibre, and food additives. Those factors have been put on record by medical experts, but the Government have done nothing. They have not even introduced the most minimal labelling. They are in the pockets of the farmers, the sugar industry and chemical companies. That is why the Tories are incapable of tackling that cause of ill health.
To improve the health of the nation, we need action that only a Labour Government can provide. We need preventive health measures to combat the causes of ill health. The report referred to low incomes, high unemployment, bad housing and poor environment, improved diets with higher nutritional standards, informative food labelling, and fewer additives being allowed, and health education being set up in a realistic way to help to promote a healthier lifestyle.
We need a charter for women's health so that there is a computerised call and recall system for screening breast and cervical cancer in every health authority area. The results of such tests should be properly conveyed to the women concerned. Every woman should have the right to a regular check-up. Labour will promote a network of well woman clinics, more family planning clinics and increased access to women doctors.
We should improve family doctors' services so that we can reduce the size of doctors' lists and ensure that they have more time for in-patients. We should encourage local family health care teams so that family doctors, nurses, health visitors and other professionals can work together in the community. Above all, there should be at least 3 per cent. investment in the NHS each year so that we can fund the repair and replacement of outdated hospital buildings, cut waiting lists, and train and recruit more doctors, nurses and other health staff to improve treatment and pay them better than the current nurses' poverty wages. That programme is in stark contrast with what the Tories have done for the health of the nation.
The number one issue in the general election will be unemployment. The Tories will try to avoid it as much as they possibly can, but the truth is that they cannot—they will not—reduce unemployment. They may reduce the figures. So far, there have been 19 figure fiddles. About 500,000 unemployed people are no longer accounted for. If elected, the Tories will probably abolish the unemployment register and replace it with a vague employment census. For them, the advantages would be that the unemployed would officially no longer exist.
I have referred to the likelihood of the introduction of United States-style workfare schemes. Does the Minister wish to give way?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): No; the hon. Gentleman gives way.

Mr. Cohen: I shall gladly do so in a moment.
The United States-style workfare schemes could include ending teenagers' rights to supplementary benefit, stripping the DHSS or so-called services of any welfare duty towards the unemployed and imposing work tests, including forced labour for thousands who register for the dole. It would be conscription by any other name—conscription to training schemes—otherwise they would lose their benefit. From there it is a short step to "no work, no dole" schemes, even though there is no work.

Mr. Trippier: How many times do we have to tell the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Employment and I have said repeatedly in the House and outside that we have not the slightest intention of introducing a workfare scheme? All hon. Members can put their hands on their hearts and say that the hon. Gentleman is simply scaremongering.

Mr. Cohen: I wish that I could believe the Minister. We must read the small print in such matters. The country and the House have been misled before. Ministers have said, "We have no intention of introducing such a scheme at the moment." [Interruption.] Yes, they have. Of course they have no such intention at the moment because there will be a general election and they do not want their plans to be rumbled into the open.
There is no work for many who suffer. The number of people out of work is seven times greater than the number of vacancies. Workfare will cut jobs for other workers. The BBC's "Panorama" programme found that, in one United States town, 12 out of 16 people working in the local police station were workfare placements, including a workfare cop. The "Panorama" programme also showed that workfare undercuts wages quite substantially.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has been more than generous in giving way and I hope that my interventions are not upsetting him. Why is it that in large areas of London—Labour-controlled local authority areas—up to 30 per cent. of males under the age of 24 are unemployed, yet the capital is overflowing with work opportunities and many employers cannot get people to work?

Mr. Cohen: The hon. Member obviously did not listen to what I said. I had just made the point that the number of people out of work is seven times greater than the number of vacancies. That is also the case in the capital. In addition, the Government have forced down salaries to such a low level that people cannot afford to work for those poverty wages. People would be thrown into even more poverty on those wages.
The Government may introduce some sort of workfare scheme, even though they may not call it that, aimed at making people work off benefits—for example, do unpaid socially useful work in return for social security payment. But the cost of enforcing and administering those schemes is far more than the social value of the work done. Such schemes contain little or no training and give no help to persons to find permanent jobs.
Workfare workers are also forced to do dangerous work or lose their benefits. Similarly if they leave a job because of race or sexual discrimination, or refuse a job because it does not fit in with their child care arrangements, they could also lose benefit. They have no employment rights. If the Government move in any way in that direction, that would be a terrible and retrograde step. I believe that the Government will do that.
We need proper jobs and good basic training instead of such schemes. The country knows that Labour has the best policies to create jobs and to tackle unemployment. We are committed to creating more than 1 million jobs in the first two years of coming to power. The key to job creation is investment in industry to boost the manufacturing that has been so savaged by the Government so that we can again


have quality goods made in Britain and an investment bank to halt the flood of money that is going abroad. Under the Government £96 billion has gone abroad.
Labour is committed to direct state investment in jobs by central Government and by municipal enterprise, and investment in construction so that we can build homes, hospitals and schools and rebuild the nation's infrastructure—its roads, railways and sewers. We are committed to investment in the community to help people in the NHS, education, transport, social services and child care. That is a much better programme than any phoney workfare scheme that the Government will put forward.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is complaining about outward investment. I take it that he would be very happy to welcome inward investment from other countries into the United Kingdom. How can he welcome inward investment while at the same time not allow outward investment?

Mr. Cohen: The speculative movement of hot capital does nothing but close down factories. I want to see that £96 billion invested in jobs in this country. The money is needed for that. Labour has the best policies to create jobs. I hope that some of my colleagues and comrades will mention the other progressive policies we need and that Labour offers. We need peace in our schools and higher quality education. We need to build and improve homes for people, not have the relentless dilapidation and homelessness which the Tories' 70 per cent. cutback in housing has produced. We need to improve the standard of living and quality of life of pensioners. We need to stop the 40,000 unnecessary hypothermia deaths which occur every winter because of high fuel costs and poverty in retirement.
We do not want nuclear expansion and our countryside desecrated. We do not want property speculation allowed in our green belts or in our inner cities. We want clean air and clean beaches. We want an end to lead in petrol. We want Britain to adopt international standards to control and combat acid rain so that our forests, rivers and seas are protected from irreparable damage. Under the Government we are the dirty men of Europe in terms of pollution.
Those are just some of the policies that a Labour Government would implement to improve the quality of life for millions of our fellow citizens. Those policies derive from better quality values for a better quality future. Contrast that with the "get rich quick, make a quick buck" approach of the Tories as illustrated by their one-off sales of national assets such as British Telecom and Rolls-Royce. What value has the quick buck when people live blighted and shortened lives because of deliberate neglect in the provision of public services? The few bob made by the Rolls-Royce shareholders will not stop many of them perhaps dying unnecessarily early from heart disease because the Government will not act, or suffering from cancer because of inadequate environmental controls, or suffering from kidney disease because the NHS is underfunded. That few bob will not stop people being part of an increasingly nasty and divided country. Those people may become victims of rising crime as a consequence.
In the article in The Observer of 3 October, William Keegan said:

The Conservatives promote the worst instincts in individuals and society. They have taken a positive delight in nurturing selfishness and greed and have made 'care' into a dirty word.
That is the case. The Tories have poisoned values and ideals, which leads to a poisoned environment and a poisoned society. Labour offers a better way forward and a better quality of life. Sensible people will vote Labour.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I do not think that many of us will read Hansard tomorrow after hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) without a real sense of wonderment because it is obvious that he does not live on the same planet or in the same world as any of us. It is a world and a planet that he wishes existed because it is only on a planet such as was described by the hon. Gentleman that his wicked schemes and the wicked ways that he seeks to impose on the British people would ever have a chance of succeeding.
I remind hon. Members of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on 5 March 1987:
You have no policies that the country needs or wants. You know that our policies are needed and wanted. Your only hope is to pretend that those policies are other than what they are. You deceive no one.
The hon. Gentleman, in that catalogue of grotesque distortions and in that fabric of innuendo and shambles, tried to perpetrate on the House a Goebbels-style exercise in black propaganda. Even on the day that a general election has been announced, it was a disgraceful speech by any standards, even by those of the loony and militant Left which he represents. It was a contemptible speech on a matter of great concern and importance. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to make such a speech when he represents thousands of constituents whose local authorities have just imposed a 62·8 per cent. rate rise upon them.
The other night 8,000 people marched on Waltham Forest town hall to express their utter contempt and real anger about the fact that the hon. Gentleman and his cronies should have sought to impose a rate increase. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to come here and lecture my hon. Friends on the provision of care and services, because he will sting every family in that constituency with a 62·8 per cent. rate increase. His nerve is beyond comprehension. His constituents must be praying for release from the long nightmare of Socialist ideology being suffered by those in Lambeth, Brent and Waltham Forest.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of Waltham Forest and its rates rise, may I ask him whether it would not be more helpful to the House if he told us exactly how much money in rate support grant has been removed from the London borough of Waltham Forest since 1979? I understand it is about £40 million. Does he not agree that if that money had not been removed from the ratepayers of Waltham Forest by his Government, the very large rate rises that have been imposed to pay for the services that are needed by the people of that area would not be necessary? Those who marched on Waltham Forest town hall would be better employed marching on the Department of the Environment in Marsham street.

Mr. Soames: The answer to every point made by the hon. Gentleman is no. The hon. Gentleman paints a view of Britain that is fanciful beyond words. He parachuted from cloud-cuckoo-land into this Chamber today and, like so many of his hon. Friends, he parachuted from the sort of dream world that he occupies with a number of others. They are divorced from the realities of life, and as they chew the barbed wire of Socialism they would do well to reflect that the people of Britain will not be conned in the next few weeks. The arguments will be clearly laid before the people and they will have the opportunity yet again to reject the dreadful and wicked programme proposed by the hon. Member for Leyton. He knows quite well that that programme would do nothing to resolve any of the serious problems that remain to be dealt with in some of the inner city areas.
It would be folly for us to claim or to think that everything in the garden is lovely and that everything is perfect. Of course it is not. It will be no part of the Conservative party's case at this general election to say that we have resolved every outstanding problem, but the foundations are well laid for the resolution of all the serious problems that this country faces.

Mr. Bill Michie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Soames: No, I will not give way.
It is because we have so many difficulties to overcome that we approach them with common sense and real compassion and not with the dribbling, whining crocodile tears of the Opposition or the lunatic meanderings of the absurd Left.
The main topic of this debate is the quality of life of our citizens. Like the power of a nation, the quality of life depends upon the primacy of economic success. [Interruption.] It does not depend at all on where one was born.
The record of growth in the United Kingdom is outstanding. It is one of the highest in the world. Britain has topped the European Community league table for growth since 1982. In the 1960s and 1970s our growth rate was the lowest of all the major European economies. Since 1980, the growth in United Kingdom manufacturing productivity has been the highest of the seven major industrial countries. In the 1960s and 1970s it was the lowest.
Manufacturing output has increased by 10·5 per cent. since 1983 and over the same time manufacturing investment has increased by 20 per cent. I am well aware that to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and to his friends on the more absurd Left of the Labour party these figures are meaningless. To the hon. Gentleman they show no measure of success and no increase in prosperity. They show no raising of the conditions of the people throughout the length and breadth of Britain. However, they are facts that cannot be denied and we cannot be asked to be partial about the facts.
As I say, manufacturing investment has increased by 20 per cent. That is a triumph and should be wholeheartedly welcomed by the Opposition. The real take-home pay of a married man on average earnings with two children has increased by 21·6 per cent. since 1978–79 and by 18·3 per cent. since 1982–83. Growth in the non-oil economy is forecast to be 3·5 per cent. in 1987. Despite the fall in oil

revenues of £7·5 billion from their 1985–86 level, in his 1987 Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was able to announce a £2·5 billion programme for a cut in taxation, with the basic rate of income tax falling from 29 per cent. to 27 per cent. I have no doubt that the electorate will view with interest the fact that the Opposition parties voted against that cut. At the same time the Chancellor managed to produce a £4·75 billion increase in public spending in priority areas such as the National Heal' h Service, about which we have heard little commendation from the Opposition. He also announced a £3 billion reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement.
Before the last election, I recall that the right hon. Gentleman who is a great magician with the language, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), said that no British firm could be certain of remaining solvent over the next two years. Like so many of his forecasts and like so many of the forecasts made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook who has taken to the kind of magical forecasts that we used to hear, they have ceased to have any credibility. It is a case of he who cries -wolf"' last. They have gone on crying wolf but nobody believes them.
As I have said, it is no part of our case that the situation is perfect, but gigantic strides have been made in the modernisation of British industry. Wherever one goes in the United Kingdom and whereever people of good will choose to analyse and look and want to see, they will see a real renaissance in the power of Britain as a manufacturing country. They will see it as a country to which economic success means primacy, and that is deeply important to the interests of all our people.
I shall now turn to the National Health Service.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I listened with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman said about the Government's economic record. Why did he not refer to unemployment, to the decline in manufacturing industry and to the loss of jobs in that industry, and why did he not speak about the deficit in manufacturing trade?

Mr. Soames: I hope to come to those topics, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman can contain himself. I know that my speech is moving along at some speed, but I intend to detain the House for some time yet. I hope to come to some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman and to answer them, I hope to his complete satisfaction. However, because of his request and before dealing with the National Health Service I shall happily deal with industrial relations and employment. [Interruption.] We talk about these things in different ways, but employment means jobs.
I say again to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr Fatchett) something that I know he finds hard to understand. Economic success pays for all the wonderful services that we provide for people who in many ways are extremely unfortunate. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that I share many of his concerns about the high level of unemployment. Unemployment will never be cured by a backward-looking economy that is wallowing in the slough of a Socialist despond. Unemployment will be cured for ever only by a vibrant, growing economy that is expanding, has confidence and is capable of garnering to itself all the new opportunities, ideas, horizons and investment that will create the new jobs that we shall badly need in future.
Let me make some specific points about unemployment. In March 1987, unemployment stood at 3,042,000—11 per cent. of the working population. That was an increase of 156,000 on the June 1983 level. Unemployment has fallen by nearly 180,000 in the past eight months. That is the fastest drop since 1973, and it is an important step forward. It is very good news, and I know that Opposition Members will welcome it.
Unemployment is definitely on the decline. However, we shall never resolve the problem as long as uncertainty hangs over the country about the possibility of a Labour Government ever again being elected. They would destroy the economy, bring back high inflation and demolish the fabric of improvement for the platform from which we are taking off for economic recovery.
Employment has risen by over 1 million since March 1983. That increase is greater than those in the European Community countries combined. It sticks ill in the gullet of Opposition Members not to congratulate the Government on the real progress being made on unemployment, although we are taking into account that we still have a long way to go.

Mr. Rob Hayward: I know that my hon. Friend is a well-read man. No doubt he has read the recent OECD report, which analyses employment rates in different OECD member countries. Will he remind the House that, for the first time in OECD statistics, the British unemployment rate is now below that of the French? That is a further indication of the progress that we are making on employment.

Mr. Soames: It is kind of my hon. Friend to remind the House of that important figure. There is no doubt that we have made gigantic strides, for which the Opposition have not given the Government proper credit. Of course, that does not mean that there is not a tremendous amount of ground to cover, but we are past the foothills of dealing with the unemployment problem. We can now see the horizon, and the opportunities that lie ahead.
It is interesting to note how much self-employment has grown. It has increased by more than 750,000 since June 1979. I suspect that the increase would be even larger if all the figures were completely accurate, and if we were not so conservative in our accounting. Youth unemployment has fallen by 120,000 over the past two years and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the percentage rate is much lower than the EEC average. Seasonally adjusted unemployment rates in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north of England stand not at 30 per cent., but 13·7 per cent., 18·6 per cent. and 15·7 per cent. respectively. Unemployment is falling in all regions across the United Kingdom.
I must repeat that it is no part of my case that the work is finished yet. This is a serious matter which is of. great concern to the Government, as is evidenced by the enormous amount of work that they have done. Even having regard to the partiality, and the requirement for partiality inherent in our system, it is a pity that the Opposition do not work together more with the Government to bring about a reduction in unemployment. But, as I have said, the first precondition for fuller employment is for the economy never again to be run by a Socialist Government. We all know of cases—there are two in my constituency—of major foreign-owned

corporations delaying substantial inward investment in this country until they are positive that there is no chance of a Labour Government being returned.
Let me now deal with the smears—I can describe them as nothing less—and the black propaganda—I am sorry; I must not use the work "black"—of the hon. Member for Leyton about the National Health Service. What he said really proved to all of us beyond peradventure that the hon. Gentleman is, frankly, a bit barmy. He talks of enormous hospitals being closed, but he does not mention the new hospitals that have been opened. He did not mention that between 1978–79 and 1985–86 there was an increase of 31 per cent. in real terms in capital spending on the NHS. It fell by 31 per cent. under the stewardship of the last Labour Government. That is a contemptible record. It does not lie in the mouth of the hon. Gentleman to criticise the Government about the enormous increases in expenditure on the NHS, which needs continuing high expenditure of public money, and a real commitment to improved management so that a better service can be delivered to those who use it.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Soames: Of course.

Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend may wish to note that, as a direct consequence of the courageous decision to close a small hospital in my constituency, it has been possible to find no less than £35 million to invest in the district general hospital. That means that my area will now have a teaching arm of the NHS, which would have been inconceivable if the campaigns led by the Opposition to keep the old hospital open had succeeded.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has cited only one of the many examples that all of us could give of the prudent and sensible management instilled into the NHS. However, we shall need to go a great deal further to provide better hospitals, better services and better paid people in the hospitals to give the patients those better services. It is interesting to recall that only recently the Labour party, in its relentless drive for an Italian-style marketing campaign, was unable to find an empty hospital ward to photograph in London. It had to scour London before it eventually found one.

Mr. Michie: I shall stick to the point about the NHS being safe and everything going marvellously. Although there has been a slight drop in the waiting list in my area, it has been calculated that it would take 34 years to clear it. Is that a good record? I should have thought that it was appalling.

Mr. Soames: It is not for me to comment on the management of the National Health Service in Sheffield. However, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will make sensible, practical and comradely suggestions to those who run the service in Sheffield to find a way of ameliorating the sad position there.
I have prefaced everything that I have said by pointing out that it is no part of our claim that everything is perfect. How could it be, in such a vast organisation? However, to portray the NHS as the hon. Member for Leyton did is to insult those who provide the service, those who work in it and all of us who pay for it. It is a terrible condemnation of the Opposition that they cannot fight the election


without immediately embarking on an appalling campaign of black propaganda to run down an NHS that has been transformed beyond all recognition.
No fewer than 100 new hospital schemes are planned for completion between 1979 and 1989. That is a remarkable number. Notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's black propaganda, total expenditure on the NHS has increased under the Tory Government from £7·75 billion in 1978—the last year of Labour Government—to £18·9 billion in 1987. It is beyond me how he can pretend to make a credible and comprehensive case when those figures alone are taken into account. They constitute an increase of 26 per cent. in real terms, and expenditure is planned to reach nearly £20 billion in 1987–88. I only hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents, when they come to make up their minds by themselves in those quiet boxes, will remember that when the last Labour Government were in power they cut capital expenditure by 31 per cent. across the board. That is a disgraceful record. There are 70,000 more doctors and nurses than there were in 1979 and 4·5 million patients are being treated. Since 1979, nurses' pay has increased in real terms by 23 per cent.
The quality of life must depend on the economic success of the country. The primacy of economic success has enabled this Government to pay a dividend in the form of substantially increased public expenditure in the priority areas. That is how it should be. Public money must be directed to those areas where it is truly needed, including the National Health Service. It can be no part of our case that all these matters have been happily resolved and that unemployment is not a serious problem. Everybody wants unemployment to be greatly decreased. No Government is doing more than we are trying to do to resolve the unemployment problem, but it will be resolved only by allowing industry and the economy to flourish, prosper and expand. That will produce a higher and more agreeable quality of life for all our people.

Mr. Bill Michie: I shall not make as grand or as long a speech as that of the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). Since I became a Member of Parliament in 1983 I have heard the Government praise themselves for their management of the economy. The hon. Member for Crawley referred to the Government's economic success. However, economic success in Sheffield means that well trained and skilled engineers and steel workers will never work again. They are having to sell their homes because they cannot afford to keep up their mortgage payments. They have invested their working lives in the economy of this country. Many of them also risked their lives for the safety of this country in the 1939–45 war.
Rates have always been said to be the real problem. That point has been made more than once in Standing Committee on subjects such as social security and local government, but the fact that industry has not been given proper Government backing has been a major factor in the closure of factories. The unit costs at British Steel in Sheffield were just as high as those in Rotherham, which has a much lower rate. Therefore, it cannot be argued that rates are the main issue. Industry's energy costs have never been subsidised to the same extent as those of our foreign competitors. However, the Government ignore that fact

for their own political purposes. Industry in Sheffield has been sacrificed for economic expediency, with the result that our proud and skilled workers will never work again.
The economic success that has been praised by the Government has led to an estimated 4 million children living at starvation level. Millions of families do not live any better now than some of them did in the 1930s. Those who are struggling to bring up their families walk past miles and miles of dereliction. Apart from the fact that they are on the scrapheap, the factories in which they used to work have been bulldozed in Sheffield and elsewhere in the north, as well as in the midlands. Is that economic success? The Government say that public expenditure has increased, but we are spending more on unemployment and crazy employment schemes than we are on industrial investment. When the Opposition come to power, we shall certainly invest in industry.
I do not understand how the Government can hold their heads up high and say that they have helped the National Health Service. The hon. Member for Crawley said that the Government are proud of what they have done for the NHS, but nurses tell me that they are disillusioned and fed up and that they are doing their best under very difficult circumstances. When I went to one hospital to talk to the nurses, I wanted to have my photograph taken with them—which any Member of Parliament would do in his constituency—but the nurses could not come out of the hospital; the health authority did not like the idea, because of the pressure that central Government are putting on the NHS. Everybody is frightened to death. Dictatorship by central Government is becoming a real issue and a fact of life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) referred to the low standard of housing. Since the war, 96,000 council houses have been built in Sheffield. Many of them need to be repaired, but that is impossible because grants have been cut. That is reducing the quality of life of those who depend on local authorities to provide housing for them. That is not an act of God. It is the act of a Government who do not care about those who need to be cared for. They no longer care whether there is suffering, or whether the housing is bad. They have written off certain groups of the population because they are not politically useful to them. They look after the City and their rich friends. They do not give a damn for those who really need help.
The Labour party may be accused of being impractical, but when I am on the hustings I shall say that the Labour party is the only alternative to the Conservative party and that it is the only party that is prepared to stick out its neck and defend the defenceless.
The elderly have worked all their lives and made great contributions to the economy through their taxes and their rates. Many of them fought for and defended their country. After having brought up families, they are now worse off than they have been for many years. If the Government do not believe what I say, I must live on a different planet. In Sheffield, there is among the elderly poverty of a kind that has never been known in my lifetime. It has been brought about by the deterioration in the level of pensions and other benefits. The elderly no longer have the privilege of decent and cheap transport. The social services are under tremendous pressure because of the cuts in local authority grants. The cost of caring for the elderly is increasing but the ratepayer has to pay for it. Sheffield's administration will continue, however, to


take the Government's brickbats. We are prepared to stand by our record, and people will make their views known in the ballot box. Sheffield's record was vindicated in the local elections, and I hope that it will be vindicated in the general election.
It is unusual for me not to prepare a speech, but I did not have to do so on this motion. I know what has happened in the past few years. The people whom I represent were once very proud, in the sense that they had decent homes and provided for their children and their own parents. Now many are on the breadline and suffering. If they have jobs to go to, they are frightened of losing their jobs. They can no longer speak their mind for fear of losing their jobs. That is not democracy. That is economic pressure put upon people who have only the Labour party to represent them and fight for them.
s
As a Member of the House and prospective parliamentary candidate, I refuse to compromise in any shape or form on this matter. We are a rich country; the problem is that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. In some parts of the country I see yachts and affluence; in my constituency I see poverty. There is no moral justification for that state of affairs and the only way out of it is to look after those who need help instead of filling the coffers of the City and the rich.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) describes a country that I do not recognise.

Mr. John Fraser: That is the trouble.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should wait to hear what people have to say before intervening from a sedentary position.
As I was saying, the hon. Member for Heeley described a country that I did not recognise. For example, the hon. Gentleman must know—I know because I have a much larger than average pensioner population in my constituency—that the majority of pensioners no longer depend on the basic pension but have incomes from a variety of sources. Some of the money comes from the taxpayer—for example, in the form of assistance with housing and heating—and that is how it should be in a caring society. Those in need should have public funds targeted towards them, and that is exactly what the Government have done during the past eight years.
We have been a prudent Government in that we recognise that there is a limit to the extent to which we can tax people without adverse effects. We know that if we spend above prudent limits, raging inflation will result and we will have to borrow money. In what happened under the last Labour Government we have marvellous evidence to convince us of that. For example, some of us remember vividly the winter of discontent. The debate is about the quality of life. What quality of life could there be when we were not even burying our dead? Those are our memories of the last Labour Government. It was not a Tory Government but that Labour Government who savagely cut expenditure on all local services. They savagely reduced National Health Service expenditure and abolished many of the expenditure programmes. That was our inheritance.
We recognised that, unless we were prudent, we could certainly never be caring, because one can be caring only if one has the resources. We set about generating those resources. The hon. Member for Heeley talked about his lifetime. I cannot recall in my lifetime a Chancellor of the Exchequer being told before a Budget in which areas to reduce his expenditure—because he was going to give back taxes. In the past the chat has always been about the areas in which taxes will increase, not about the areas in which they will fall. That is what is new. We can be prudent and we can be caring which is important because we now have the resources.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), in his magnificent speech, said that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) had parachuted into the Chamber from cloud-cuckoo-land. As one who knows a little about flying, may I suggest that parachuting is a risky business, particularly with a parachute that is not viable? The hon. Gentleman's programme is neither viable nor realistic and he must know that. When the flaws in one's parachute are exposed, one hits the ground with a terrible thud, and that is exactly what will happen to the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party at the next general election, when the flaws in their programme are examined and exposed.

Mr. Cohen: My feet are always firmly on the ground. The Labour party is very keen to have its programme thoroughly examined. We only hope that the press will examine it fairly and recognise that it meets our people's needs.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is wise to say that he will keep his feet on the ground. The evidence that he has presented suggests that he does not do his research carefully enough or conduct his pre-flight operations properly. In all flying, the end result of that is a crash and that is the likely outcome of the hon. Gentleman's programme.
I remind the House that I am proud to represent part of highland Scotland. Hundreds of thousands like to visit highland Scotland on vacation and I hope that they will continue to do so because they are vital to our economy. Many of them, on seeing what we have in our part of the country, say, "My goodness me! I like this." They try to come back and, more important, many of them decide to stay, and we welcome them. That would hardly be our experience if there was anything in our quality of life to deter them. Or could it be that we have lovely mountains and scenery and splendid fishing and recreational facilities? I think not. We have many of the other things that go to make up the quality of life. For example, the Tayside part of the Health Service must be about the finest in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and I know that because we were both customers last year. We were both critically ill in ward 11 of Nine Wells hospital in Dundee. At the time we tried not to tell anyone but it is no longer a secret so we can now tell the public at large just how ill we were. As a result of the dedication and motivation of the nurses, doctors and all the other staff at Nine Wells hospital, the hon. Gentleman and I are living examples of the effectiveness of the Health Service. I deplore those who knock our Health Service. Rather than going in for all this theoretical nonsense, they should find out for themselves by sampling


at first hand just how good and dedicated are the staff of the National Health Service. The Health Service is in fine hands, and I am delighted with the quality of the staff.
As I said, we are a prudent and caring Government—caring, because we direct aid towards those in need. [Interruption] I notice that some Labour Members find that humorous. I remind them that during the last eight years we have introduced measures to help the disabled and have given pensions to those of an age at which people previously did not receive them. We have deliberately targeted those in the greatest need and have brought in new measures to help them. I am not afraid to stand on a public platform in my constituency or anywhere else to defend my Government's record. From the shambles that we inherited from the Labour Government, we have produced a quality of life of which I am proud.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walker: I am always delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Haynes: When the hon. Gentleman is on that platform, will he tell the people who are listening that Conservative Members were whipped in here on a Friday morning to vote down a private Member's Bill that was to help the disabled much more than they are being helped at present? Will the hon. Gentleman tell those people that the Conservative party did that?

Mr. Walker: I have no difficulty in answering that question. If the hon. Gentleman was here then—I am sure that he was—and if he had listened to the debate, he would have heard the Minister say that we applauded the introduction of those measures and that we would do what we have always said we would do and fund them as and when we judged that the resources were available. Those are exactly the policies about which I was talking—prudent and caring. We do not promise things and not deliver. What we promise, we deliver.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) knows that he is a member of a party that made promises and did not deliver. The Labour party made promises in 1974, but two years later had to go to the IMF and had to renege on its promises. That is why the Labour Government cut the Health Service and local authority expenditure and why we inherited problems. The Labour party has always had plans and policies that it cannot implement. The history of every Labour Government has been one of making promises and plans that they cannot implement. If a Government are prudent and caring, they tell the people the truth. They say, "Yes, we want to help you. Yes, we will help you, as and when we make sure that the funds are available." More important, we have made sure that the revenue implications of our measures can be met. Any fool can make promises if he thinks that he will never have to deliver.
I am not ashamed of the quality of life in the part of Scotland that I represent and I am not afraid to stand on a political platform to defend it. Our local schools are splendid. Our little village schools have a long record of which we are proud. They have produced some of the finest citizens and the best scholars. There is no doubt that we should continue to nurture what is important—the wealth creators.
One of our great difficulties has been the failure of the Opposition and others to recognise that we are living in a

period of change which is almost as great as the change that occurred during the industrial revolution. The old smokestack industries which were labour-intensive are disappearing world wide, and we must face that fact. It has had to be faced not only by the steelworks in Britain but throughout Europe. It is interesting that our steelworks are competing with and beating the opposition because our productivity is better, because the essential decisions that will make them function effectively and profitably in the world have been taken. Even the Swedes, who are noted for their caring attitudes, recognised that they could no longer have shipyards and therefore had to close them.
What we are living through is not unique to Britain. It is the same throughout the industrial world.

Mr. Michie: rose——

Mr. Walker: I shall give way later.
We must recognise that jobs can and will be created in different industries because the employment of the future may be different. I mention my constituency because tourism is the largest single employer there. It is important that we recognise that many of the jobs of the future will come from the service sector. That will call for enlightened thinking by planners who will have to recognise that we are not living in an age when all the jobs are in the old-style mills and factories. I often think that, if we had planners then, we would never have had mills and factories, because they would never have allowed them. But now the planners are trying to keep them, which is interesting.
We must take the attitude that the service sector will provide jobs. The attitude of planners must he constructive. I hope that the problems in the county town of Forfar will not be repeated elsewhere. The local planning authority in Forfar is telling one of the local garages that it cannot have the standard Nissan sign displayed on the garage. About 40,000 outlets in the United Kingdom display that sign, but the Forfar garage cannot. That type of nonsense will destroy jobs. That attitude must be changed.
We are living in a period of great challenge. The challenge to the Government is that they must continue with their same prudent and caring policies—prudent policies on expenditure and caring policies in channelling expenditure towards those in greatest need. Only in that way will we ensure that there is not a tax burden that cripples the wealth creators and that will make it impossible for us to fund all the programmes that we would like. Effective taxation means that we are getting so much money from value added tax and corporation tax. That is the direct result of effective, prudent policies.

Mr. Michie: I should like to return to the hon. Gentleman's earlier point that industry has to change. It has had to change throughout the world, and I do not think that any Opposition Member disagrees. But we are concerned about the rate and percentage of change. Of course, the steel and engineering industries had to modernise and, to some extent, reduce their size, but the rate of change has been disastrous. With the Government's co-operation, 50 per cent. of steel jobs in the European Community have been lost, so the Government's policy has been unfair in that sense.

Mr. Walker: It is only because we did all the right things in time that our steel industry is where it is. My fear is that the British steel industry could have gone the same


way as the Swedish shipyards. That probably would have happened if we had not taken action in time. Anyone who has been involved in management knows that difficult decisions are not easy to take and that, if one delays taking them the business may have to go into receivership. We are faced with that type of problem throughout the United Kingdom. I welcome this debate. I invite anyone who doubts that we have a fine quality of life to stay in north Tayside and he, like me, will be delighted with it.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: This is an opportune day to examine the Government's record over eight years. I am not concerned with hidden agendas. The Government's current record is enough of an indictment. We have seen over those eight years the position of the least well off in society getting progressively worse while the better off have thrived. Glib protestations and carefully chosen statistics from the Conservative Government will carry no conviction with those unfortunate people who are on the receiving end of their policies. We see the declining standards in the National Health Service. Three hospitals have closed in my area and none has opened. The number of beds has been dramatically reduced, even though demand for them is rising. Waiting lists are getting longer.
Social services have declined. Old people lack essential care. Although it is true that many pensioners have incomes in addition to their state pension, many have not. A number have only a miserly additional pension and, in many respects, that leaves them the worst off. They are precluded from the many additional entitlements from which they would benefit if they had the state pension. Often those people are the poorest pensioners.
Crime in inner cities and in most of the country is on the increase. Conflict in the classroom continues and children's education is still being used as a political football. The Government—and in London the Inner London education authority—have presided over a calamitous period in state education, with standards falling, teaching morale at an all-time low and children leaving school ill equipped to take advantage of the limited opportunities that are available.

Mr. Bill Walker: On the issue of children in the area of the Inner London education authority who leave school badly equipped, during her speech will the hon. Lady address the fact that ILEA spends more money per child than is spent in any other part of the country? How can it do that but get such awful results, compared with Tayside highland schools?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I remind the House that there is a limited time for this debate. Hon. Members who have already addressed the House, as well as those who are trying to catch my eye to intervene, make it more difficult for me to call other hon. Members who wish to be called.

Mrs. Barnes: I shall reply briefly to the comment of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). It seems that ILEA spends a vast amount per head on administration. However, the evidence of that expenditure is not seen in the schools, nor in their results. Therefore, I endorse the sentiments of the hon. Gentleman's question.
Unemployment in this country remains at more than 3 million, in spite of the endless massaging of the figures. That is what has been achieved during the eight years. The Conservatives now ask for another term to put things right. One may wonder how long they need. The Government have embarked on a policy of sacrificing our long-term economic revival in the interests of a short-lived consumer boom. Those in jobs, especially those in the south-east, are benefiting from increased standards of living. But at what price?
Our share of world trade in manufacture has fallen from 12·4 per cent. in 1979 to 9·6 per cent. in 1986. Our manufacturing trade is in the red. Last year's deficit of £5·8 billion was the worst ever. Manufacturing output is still 4 per cent. below its level when the Tories came to power. We are failing to take advantage of the opportunities that new technologies offer. We are not investing nearly enough in skills, or in research and development.
Let us take a closer look at the ways in which the quality of life has been affected during the past eight years. We should make no mistake that many of the worst areas are those, such as mine in Greenwich, where people are caught between an uncaring Tory Government and an extreme Left-wing Labour council.
Unemployment has been the blight of this Government, but, in spite of the protestations of Conservative Members, something can be done about it. Unemployment is not a fact of life with which we must live, nor something over which the Government have no control. It is realistic to tackle unemployment and the alliance's claim to reduce it by 1 million in three years is a realistic and sustainable programme, based on economic expansion and regional regeneration. Our programme involves a job guarantee for everyone who has been out of work for a year or more and includes specifically the creation of 750,000 jobs over a three-year period through building improvement programmes. When we have housing shortages and when houses are in appalling repair, it is ludicrous to have building workers who are unemployed. That makes no sense.
We are also committed to creating new jobs in the health and caring services. In all, we plan to create 60,000 such jobs. The job release scheme will be expanded. Under it, elderly men, if they so wish, are entitled to take early retirement at the age of 62.
A capital programme for housing, roads and urban renewal makes sense when much of this country's infrastructure is in decline. People are unemployed and week after week, month after month, vast payments are made on the dole. We are paying people to be unemployed, but our country is crumbling and there are jobs to be done. That makes no sense, and the people know that.
What about poverty? We have heard that some Conservative Members do not recognise some of the pictures that are portrayed from these Opposition Benches. I share the views of Opposition Members because I see that poverty in Greenwich and know that it exists. If any Conservative Members wish to come and have a look, I shall be happy to show them that poverty.
In 1979, 11·5 million people were on or near the poverty line. That figure is now more than 16 million. Therefore, one third of the population live in poor families. I see such families struggling to make ends meet, pensioners who cannot afford to turn on the heat, and parents who cannot afford to feed their children adequately. I am shocked by the damp and appalling housing conditions and by the


constant colds and bad chests suffered by children. Many of us would expect those conditions to have gone with the Dickens era. However, they have not, and there are plenty of such examples in Greenwich. I expect that many parts of the country are considerably worse.
The alliance is committed to tackling poverty and to improving the lives of those people. That involves giving them more money because they must have a reasonable standard of living. We have a programme to increase benefits for the poor, for old-age pensioners and for families with children. We accept that most of that money must be targeted to the poorest people who need it the most. We are not rich enough to give it to everyone—we wish that we were—so there must be an element of directing it to the most needy cases. Our commitment to higher pensions for old people——

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I share—as I am sure we all do—her view on the ideal operation of targeting money to the most needy, but how can we do that without building up the existing problems of the poverty trap?

Mrs. Barnes: I shall say a little more in a moment about the way in which that can be achieved. The alliance is vitally concerned about the poverty trap. There are several circumstances in which it is clearly in people's interests to remain unemployed rather than to take a low-paid job. If they receive a small additional sum from another source—as is the case with pensioners who have a small additional pension—they are precluded from many benefits which would make their lives considerably better. Benefits must be withdrawn on a tapered basis so that nobody will ever be worse off by being employed than by remaining unemployed. That would make nonsense of the incentive to work.
I shall detail briefly the alliance's plan for increased pensions. As a basic, we would offer——

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Lady has made a strong indictment of the Government's policies on jobs and poverty. May we conclude that in the case of a hung Parliament there is no way in which the alliance would support the Conservative party?

Mrs. Barnes: The hon. Gentleman will understand that as a relative newcomer to this Parliament I cannot single handedly give a complete commitment on behalf of the alliance. However, I give a personal commitment, in the event of a hung Parliament, to working towards tackling unemployment and alleviating poverty. I hope that Labour Members will join the alliance in pushing for these measures.

Mr. Fatchett: I can understand that the hon. Lady cannot singlehandedly commit the alliance because that is left to only one other person. However, from what she has said, is it fair to construe that there is no way in which she will work with Conservative Members?

Mrs. Barnes: No, that is not a fair construal. The hon. Gentleman asked me specifically about jobs and poverty and I answered in terms of jobs and poverty. I think that this discussion is outside the sphere of the debate.
I now return to the quality of life. I should like to talk for a few moments in a little more detail about the National Health Service because Conservative Members have commented on it in considerable depth. The Government say that they are spending more; but

everyone knows that hospitals are closing and that waiting lists are getting longer. Both facts are true. However, we must accept that the growth in demand is exceeding the increased investment in the Health Service. People are living longer, so we have more elderly people to care for. The average cost of caring for somebody over the age of 75 is eight times the cost of caring for someone between 16 and 75. Therefore, the budget would have to increase by 1 per cent. just to take account of the increasing number of elderly people in our population.
Obviously, the NHS must bear the cost of some of the improvements that it has made. Technological improvements, services and treatments are often expensive. Hip replacements, for example, are costly, but they are available and make a dramatic improvement to the quality of a person's life. Therefore, the denial of them is callous and intolerable. In Greenwich and many other parts—I can speak with some authority as before being elected to this place, I was a researcher and took part in the Central Office of Information survey into the NHS—people make the same point about operations, such as hip replacements, saying, "If I could pay for the operation, I could have it within two weeks, but on the NHS I may have to wait four years." We are talking about elderly people living in misery which can be alleviated by a straightforward operation. While they are waiting, they are often immobile and at the mercy of relatives or social services, so people are having to pick up the bill to enable their lives to continue until they are made mobile and self-sufficient. It does not make sense.
We are living at a time when modern lifestyles—stressful and poverty stricken—place a heavy burden on the NHS. I cannot give any statistics, but certainly if the quality of housing in Greenwich was improved and damp was eliminated, the number of children being admitted to hospital with chronic asthma and bronchitis would fall dramatically. Many women in chronically overcrowded houses, perhaps with an unemployed husband. and under extreme stress are constantly at the doctor's for valium or other sedatives when what they need is a better standard of life. All they need is a decent home. The stress that they suffer as a result of that deprivation sends them and their families straight into the arms of the NHS. It is a never-ending circle.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the hon. Lady agree that private medicine is a drain on the NHS and takes resources away from those who cannot afford to buy their way past the hospital queues? Does she further agree that it would be logical to remove pay beds and privatised services from NHS hospitals and bring back direct labour? Would that be alliance policy?

Mrs. Barnes: Clearly, if private facilities within NHS premises act as a drain on the NHS they should be eliminated. In some cases private patients bring in more money and that cannot be ignored. Some authorities rely considerably on money from private patients. That being said, I would strive for a position where the NHS provides the service that people need at the time when they need it, not four years later than they can get it privately. While I would not oppose private medicine as a right if people want to opt for it, I would prefer that they opted for it for the luxurious optional extras than for basic necessary treatment to alleviate misery.

Mr. Martin Brandon-Bravo: Before the hon. Lady leaves the Health Service, an important point must be cleared up. I understand that the alliance has calculated that we must spend 2 per cent. above the rate of inflation to deliver an adequate Health Service. Is she aware that the Government have delivered 3 per cent. above the rate of inflation in the lifetime of this Parliament? Therefore, it sounds as though the alliance, far from caring and providing more resources, would cut health spending.

Mrs. Barnes: Not at all. We have a commitment to increase spending on the NHS over and above what the Government are spending because that is clearly inadequate.
Clearly, we cannot improve on the service without spending more money. The United Kingdom spends fewer of its resources on health than any of its neighbours or any similar country. We in the alliance are committed to a higher level of real expenditure on the NHS. We shall place particular emphasis on preventative care, community care and promoting healthier lifestyles.
Much of what the NHS is doing is not its prime responsibility. It is picking up the pieces caused by poverty and other problems.

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Lady has been extremely kind and patient with the House. She has catalogued many expenditure programmes to which she says the alliance is committed and she said that she was a researcher. This is not a trick question, but has the alliance specifically calculated what the increase in direct taxation or corporation tax would have to be to fund those programmes?

Mrs. Barnes: The alliance has a thoroughly costed menu which has been audited and will be published tomorrow. It has been produced according to the Treasury model and will be available for hon. Members to scrutinise.
We in the alliance are talking about a 2 per cent. real increase over and above what is being spent. We are committed to a pay increase for NHS staff whose wages or salaries have fallen further behind since 1979. We are aware of the Government's recent moves over nurses' pay and we, like many others in society and the nurses themselves, regard that with cynicism. We are talking about 60,000 new health and social services jobs.
The NHS is in a crisis and will decline to the point of collapse unless something is done. The Government with the commitment that they claim to have cannot stand with their hand on their heart and say to the people of Greenwich, "The NHS is safe with us." They will laugh in Greenwich.
The state of housing is a national disgrace, despite the claim in the 1983 Tory manifesto that
Our goal is to make Britain the best housed nation in Europe.
The collapse of public spending on house building since the Conservatives came to power has resulted in record numbers of homeless people and of others trapped in overpriced, inadequate, privately rented accommodation, while a further sector are trapped in council homes which are either too small for them or desperately need repair and improvement. In many parts, including Greenwich, only those who can afford to buy have any choice of housing and, in the south-east, few can afford to buy as house prices soar.
In the main, Labour councils ignore the desire of ordinary people for choice and control over their homes. Labour councils share with the alliance the commitment to more investment in housing, but they are insistent that it should go to local authorities for more council homes. They pay lip service to tenant power but in reality they are afraid of it as something that they cannot control. At present in Greenwich the Labour council is trying to replace tenant associations with tenant associations of their own placemen which are headed by council appointees on a salary. Clearly this is not a genuine reflection of the tenants' voice, particularly when tenants want to challenge the authority that is providing their homes and which is, in effect, their landlords and which is making a poor job of it.
Our commitment is to provide everyone with a decent home and a choice. We support home ownership and the right to buy. We support people's right to rent and we are committed to a greatly expanded rented sector by creating a new partnership housing sector which would involve working with banks and building societies and combining public and private money, as has been done successfully in other countries, to provide a large number of homes to rent that are managed by housing associations. We should not go back to days of Rachmanism and private landlords.
We are committed to investing in local authority housing to get council houses in a decent state of repair. At the same time we would give tenants the right to manage their own estates to give them control over their homes. Their current feeling of complete helplessness in their damp, overcrowded conditions leads to despair and anger and they recognise that neither of the two old parties has been able to tackle their housing problems.
What about crime? The Conservative manifesto of 1983 said:
already street crime is being reduced and public confidence improved in some of the worst inner-city areas.
What has happened? Crime of all kinds is increasing. House breaking and car thefts are becoming commonplace. Vandalism is running riot. But perhaps the most worrying aspect of all is the dramatic rise in crimes of violence, which often include the use of weapons. Until we tackle unemployment and social deprivation and get more policemen back on the beat, the Tories' claim is just pie in the sky.
The quality of life in this country is declining, especially for the old, the poor, the children and the sick. Those people are at risk. The Government have had eight years to tackle the plight of those people, but have failed. Will the country give them another go? I doubt it.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I agree with the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) who proposed this motion; it is a huge tragedy, a cost to the nation and a calamity to many individuals that we have so many people out of work. It is worrying that there are so many thousands of houses that are substandard and that we are unable to provide comfortable homes for people to live in. It is distressing that there are so many people waiting for relief as they care for others or as they seek medical treatment for themselves. It is little short of scandalous that so many of our children leave school after 11 years of compulsory education with nothing that society reckons


as valuable. It is appalling that Britain lags so far behind our major competitors in the quality and quantity of industrial training.
I gathered from his speech that the hon. Member for Leyton shares my concern for these issues and for the many people whose lives are nowhere near as good as we would wish them to be. There is no division in this House about the importance of these matters. Where the division lies is in what is best to be done about them.
The solution of the hon. Member for Leyton and his hon. Friends is quite simply to raise taxes and spend the money not on jobs in industry, but on jobs in central and local government; raise rates and hope that neither business nor the people with initiative and drive will leave for more providently run authorities.
When the money runs out, as it always will, a Labour Government can always borrow. It does not matter if, as a result, inflation rises. It does not matter if, as a result of that, the savings of pensioners become valueless and the value of their pension constantly lags behind the price of what they need to buy. Why does it not matter? It does not matter because in the end there will always be the chance to borrow from the International Monetary Fund. Why should a Labour Government care that when they go to the IMF to bail them out they are diminishing the total pool of resources available to the poorest countries in the world—to bail out a country which is incapable of being one of the most developed in the world?
Conservative Members have a different view as to the road that we should follow. What do we believe in? We believe in making it possible for British companies to take on the foreign competition and win. It is always tempting to take money from the temporarily successful and give it to the failures. The longer that we do that the longer it takes the failures to look at their standards and improve them. While Jaguar received subsidy its cars broke down. Now that it does not, its cars beat the world, and because of that Jaguar takes on more people and the unemployment figures start to fall. The best news for the unemployed is not that Government subsidy is to be increased; it is that last month over 50 per cent. of the cars that were sold in this country were made in Britain. That is the Tory approach to unemployment.
Why are there so many substandard houses? The reason is that they do not belong to the people who live in them. That is why we have pushed forward with the sale of council houses. When people own their own house they set their own standards. When things go wrong in their house they mend them. They no longer have to wait, sometimes for months, before even a window pane is fixed. That is what we have done in Rochester-upon-Medway, which is one of my local district councils. We have sold more houses per head then almost any other local authority in the country, so it is of little surprise that we doubled our majority in last Thursday's elections.
Of course we need and want more health care, but it is because we have spent so much on health that we can now achieve miracles of curative medicine that hitherto were undreamed of. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) was quite right when she said that, in effect, our problem in the National Health Service is that of managing success, when more people live longer and when people who would have died of their disability live, not only into middle age, but into old age. Of course that puts

a huge demand on resources, but that is one of the reasons why the Government have introduced, for the first time, an income for carers.
What about education? It is typical that in education the Opposition should still concentrate on destruction rather than creation. They propose the abolition of private schools. Why? Because they work. Never mind that they suck money into the education system. Never mind that they reduce the size of state sector classes. They do not breed people who expect to be clients for the rest of their lives. That is why they have to go.
The Opposition propose the abolition of grammar schools. Why? Because they are hugely popular with parents, employers and children. They do not breed people who expect to be clients for the rest of their lives. That is why they have to go.
The Opposition would do better to give priority to dealing with schools that do not work, not those that do. The most expensive education authority in Britain, as we have already heard, is Labour-controlled. For all that money, does it provide a standard of education that is higher than anywhere else? As the hon. Member for Greenwich said, it does not. It runs schools from which every year thousands of children escape with nothing that employers, parents or children value. But we take a different view. We look first for an education that parents want. That is why we have given parents more choice of schools, more control over their local schools and more information about how their children are doing at school. We also want better teaching. That is why we have sought assessment of teachers so that they can do their vital job more effectively. That is also why we are planning better training for head teachers.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Is it not hypocritical for Tory Members to lay down prescriptions for state schools when more than 90 per cent. of them opt out and send their children to public schools?

Mr. Rowe: It is no more hypocritical than Labour Members creating council housing policy when many of them live in private housing. That is an absurd intervention and I dismiss it. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Health Service?"] I use the Health Service a great deal.

Mr. Rogers: The hon. Member goes private when he wants to.

Mr. Rowe: It is open to the hon. Gentleman to use the private health service any time he wishes.
We are taking more responsibility for head teachers, although the teaching unions do not want it. There can be nothing more derisory than the fact that the teaching unions are voting against the allocation to professional people of the kind of responsibility that in any other profession the professionals are glad to accept. That is a wonderful commentary on the poor state to which the National Union of Teachers has sunk. We believe in improving education, not in spending more money on education bureaucrats.
The Opposition worry about training but they want to suck money out of companies regardless of the companies' state of health and process the money through yet another centralised bureaucracy to lay on training programmes devised by central Government. Some Government expenditure is, of course, necessary and it is interesting to


note that the Conservative Government in the United Kingdom spend as much on training as any of our competitors. It is United Kingdom companies which do not do so. We could argue for ever about why United Kingdom firms take less interest in training than, for example, German firms, but the fact is that United Kingdom firms regard training more as a cost than as an investment. If that is so, they must be making a profit before they will expand their training. That is why I welcome the growing profitability of British firms. As with all our other policies, we can expect far more progress from profitable companies than from companies debilitated by a swollen, theory-ridden central Government.
I share the concern of the hon. Member for Leyton. He was right to bring these matters to the attention of the House. The next four weeks will determine whether we go on attacking these problems from a position of growing strength and success or whether we return to a Government wonderfully strong on rhetoric but pathetic on delivery. Of course we have not finished, but we have made a fine beginning. When the next Government come in, I and many of my hon. Friends will be looking for more and better community care, more and better houses and more and better jobs, and we shall be looking with confidence that they will be forthcoming.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I remind the House that the Front Bench spokesmen hope to catch my eye from 6.30 pm.

Mr. John Fraser: It is appropriate that we should today be debating a subject on which the country will make its choice in exactly one month's time. Having drawn third place in the ballot, I have no hesitation whatever in committing an act of plagiarism and endorsing the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). I have tried to think what the quality of life means for my constituents and how to measure that which is worth living against the drudgery of a life that has not much quality about it.
I believe that the quality of life includes a number of elements, although this is by no means an exclusive list. Above all, it must mean living in freedom from the curse of poverty, freedom from having to choose how to live on little more than £30 per week—a sum that many people regard as appropriate for a meal for two in a medium-class restaurant. Quality of life means not having to choose whether to spend money on food, on heating, on a pram for the baby or perhaps on new clothes or shoe repairs. At least a quarter of my constituents have to make that kind of awkward choice every week. A skill is required to manage on social security which many of us do not possess. It is particularly galling for people to have to go cap in hand to the DHSS to ask for single payments to replace a bed, to obtain surgical boots or to cope with the arrival of a new baby. Many people in my constituency do not have freedom from that kind of poverty. Quality of life means not just freedom from poverty but a little luxury—being able to go on a holiday, being able to afford to travel and occasionally to buy some new clothes and live

it up a little. I look forward to a time when that quality of life and freedom from poverty will be available to more people.
Quality of life means living in dignified housing to which one is proud to bring one's friends rather than in a home that is draughty, in poor repair or riddled with condensation. In my constituency, as a result of a two thirds drop in the amount of money available for housing investment, that freedom is denied to people in both the public and the private sector. The problems of damp and disrepair and of homes that cannot be properly heated are experienced as much by poor owner-occupiers as by council tenants.
Quality of life means decent medical care and good health. We have suffered a number of closures, not just of hospitals but of operating theatres. For example, the recent closure of the orthopaedic operating theatre at Dulwich hospital has put an end to hip replacement operations there.
Quality of life means freedom for our children to look forward to a good education and training appropriate to a job that is reasonably highly paid and involves the exercise of skill. Quality of life also means security—freedom from burglary, theft of one's vehicle or attack on the street. It means living in surroundings in which the town environment has style and dignity and the countryside has beauty. Travelling around the country recently, I have noticed the tattiness of the sides of our roads, the litter on the streets and the dereliction alongside railway embankments. It is a disgrace, and Richard Branson and his gimmicks have done nothing to improve it.
The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) said that the Opposition were exaggerating and that we were living on another planet. My borough of Lambeth has gone to the trouble of commissioning an entirely independent organisation—the firm of Nathaniel Lichfield—working in conjunction with the Centre for Environmental Studies, to chart what has happened to the quality of life in the borough since the Tory Government came to power. These figures have been provided not by a partial borough council but by an independent auditing organisation. Between 1979 and 1984 the average standard of living of the 96,000 households in Lambeth as measured by gross income fell by 5 per cent. after allowing for inflation. In the same period—we have not been able to measure up to the present time—average incomes in the country as a whole rose by 4 per cent. before tax and just over 1 per cent. after tax. In other words, my borough has suffered a sharp decline in incomes compared with the rest of the country. That increase in inequality has been largely due to the dramatic increase in unemployment. In 1984, 45 per cent. of households in my constituency had incomes below £4,400 without London allowance. In other words, nearly half the population was living at or below the poverty line. Between 1979 and 1984 the lower income households experienced a 10 per cent. decline in income before tax and the poorest 10 per cent. of the population suffered a decline in income of 15 per cent. over that period.
The largest drop in income has been among independent households, including those of single-parent families, and many of those hardest hit have been black members of the community. The total balance sheet for households in Lambeth shows that it would have required an extra £1,350 per household in the period 1979–84 to


compensate them for the loss of income. The total loss of income to the local economy during that period has been £125 million.
I have only been able to give figures up to 1984. If the present economic and fiscal trends continue until 1991 the audit forecasts that there will be a further loss of income of £1,900 per household relative to the income of the average household in Britain. That represents a further reduction of £180 million in the combined income of all households in my borough. That is the audit's independent assessment of the years of Tory Government. It also independently charts the decrease in the housing investment programme of 64 per cent. in my borough over the same period, the reduction, in real terms, of 45 per cent. in rate support grant, and the cut in inner city partnership moneys this year. Such is the independently charted history of the Tories in Government in my borough, and worse to come is forecast.
What have the eight years of Conservative Government meant for the quality of life in my borough and constituency? They have meant depression, dereliction and division. They have meant the few rich getting richer and the poor stunningly poorer, with almost half of them living at or near the poverty line. Most of the population bear more taxes despite their poverty—a greater burden of VAT, of rates and of other charges upon their income. They have meant a 400 per cent. increase in unemployment, which has particularly hit the young, the school leaver, the college leaver, minorities and women. Half of the population has been excluded from affordable housing of a dignified standard. Crime has been escalating, as the underlying causes of crime grow worse. Those years have meant that hospital operating theatres and other hospitals have been closed. They have meant the Health Service walking on a tightrope without a safety net; and the impoverishment of most people and services financially, and, socially, of the whole community—because no one is immune from the consequences of economic blight wrought by the Tories.
We have been racked by riot as well as poverty, and there are no signs of hope until the Government are turned out of office. We have had no tax handouts for the community, no spoils of privatisation and no bonuses from North sea oil. All we have are forecasts of more and worse, together with the poll tax, which will bring a blight on our community.
Our future lies only with a Labour Government who care for the entire community and who put people before the Tory beggaring of the community. The quality of life in my borough depends on ending the Tory policies that have cast a shadow over the constituency that I represent. I know that the people of my borough cannot wait for an improvement in, quality, and cannot turn this Government out soon enough.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) who has talked about the problems in his borough. If he looked over his shoulder at the neighbouring borough of Wandsworth, he would find that people there do not have anything like the problems of the people in his borough. He might scratch his head and ask himself the reason. On one side of the boundary there is a Left-wing Labour

authority and on the other, a prudent, sensible, caring Conservative authority. That might have something to do with it.
Excuse me for getting carried away, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we live in exciting times. We also live in sad times. About 80 of our colleagues will, of their own free will, not be rejoining us in a few weeks' time. These are sad times, too, because the Labour party, which for so many years has given signal service to our society, is now poised on the precipice of terminal decline. That is a turning point in our history.
The utility and relevance of the Labour party are exhausted. It is in a dreadful state; it is leaderless; we do not hear any more of the dream ticket about which we heard some time ago. The party is riven by factions. Where it is prominently in power in the country, it is controlled by the loony Left. Such Labour Members of Parliament as are returned after the election will, in the majority, be of the loony Left, and the party is now fatally undermined by that final, racist obscenity and absurdity—the crisis over black sections.
The Labour party—I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are a member of it—is facing the big drop; and, faced with it, all it can come up with is the big lie. The myth-making factory has been working overtime.

Mr. Soames: Goebbels' propaganda.

Mr. Marlow: The Goebbels propaganda about the health service——

Mr. Corbyn: rose——

Mr. Marlow: I have very little time.
Of course, there are problems in the Health Service and we shall do more about them. However, the Government have increased expenditure on the Health Service, in real terms, by more than a quarter, whereas, whatever the Opposition wanted to do during the last Labour Government, the reality was that the International Monetary Fund put a block on their plans. They had to cut off their programme and reduce expenditure on the Health Service. We have improved and increased expenditure, but the Opposition were not able to do so. We have heard about waiting lists. In my constituency, and in those of most hon. Members, waiting lists have come down during the past few years. Let us have the truth about that.
There have been great problems and scandals about housing. I, and many hon. Friends who have been campaigning during the local elections, have been knocking on doors in areas that were run down and decrepit eight years ago. We have seen how the houses there have been improved, and how the environment, furnishings and fabric have been improved. We have seen how much better off our housing stock and the people who live in it now are. There has been a great improvement in my constituency, and I am sure that that is true of many other parts of the country.

Mr. Corbyn: There are people sleeping on the streets.

Mr. Marlow: There are problems in housing—again, largely in Labour local authority areas in which there are massive, maladministered estates and in which the local authorities have not even collected the rents. In some parts of London one fifth of the rent remains uncollected. No wonder that those authorities do not have the cash to improve the properties, to deal with the plumbing, to deal


with the damp and the problems in which people are living. Is it not absurd that in precisely those authorities' areas homelessness exists side by side with empty houses? Is it not absurd that many of our citizens are trapped in homelessness while many others have houses that they want to make available for rent, but, because of past fears about the possible policies of a re-elected Labour Government, they have not put those houses back on the market? People are willing to help, but they are blighted by Socialism.
There is also the great myth about the cut in manufacturing industry. It has been booming—productivity and manufactured output have been growing during the past few years. Let us put the issue in perspective. If manufacturing output is not as high as Opposition Members want it to be, we have been getting oil from the North sea as well. How does one do that? One uses the same skills and machinery. Why is manufacturing industry on one side and oil on the other? Add the two together and there has been a massive increase in national output.
British Airways has been one of our most successful industries. It comprises people who build the airports and maintain the aircraft, people who fly and manage the aircraft and people who manufacture them. Why are the Opposition obsessed only with the people involved in manufacturing industry? There is a whole realm of activity that creates wealth in the country.

Mr. Soames: rose——

Mr. Marlow: I should love to give way, but I must get on.
The Opposition tell us about their miraculous cure for job creation. It is what I call a Bulgarian solution. If one goes to the national state museum in Sofia one finds a great number of exhibits and artefacts.

Mr. Corbyn: Has the hon. Gentleman been there?

Mr. Malow: I have indeed.

Mr. Corbyn: Was he indoctrinated there?

Mr. Marlow: Of course. In front of every artefact and exhibit there will be someone standing as an attendant. Of course, there is no unemployment in Bulgaria. There would not be any unemployment in this country in those circumstances, but what poverty! What a way of life! What a way to run a country!
As my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) said, the reality is that the average pensioner has seen an improvement in his standard of living that has been even greater during the lifetime of this Government than that which has been enjoyed by the person in employment. I understand that the Opposition are planning to give vast amounts of money to pensioners. We have had this before. When this happened when the last Labour Government were in office, the International Monetary Fund came in and the payment of the Christmas bonus had to be stopped. It is no good talking about plans that cannot be delivered. That is deception. That is not the way to carry on.
Then we have this myth about the north-south divide. That is nonsense. Does the House realise that unemployment in Halifax is less than it is in Hastings? Unemployment in Berwick-upon-Tweed is less than that

in Brighton. Unemployment in Northampton is less than it is in Southampton. There is a divide, and it is the one that I have alluded to. There is a divide between those areas of the country that are dominated by Socialism in local government and those that are prudently run by the Conservative party.

Mr. Corbyn: What about unemployment in Wandsworth?

Mr. Marlow: If we look at the unemployment statistics that the hon. Gentleman is asking about, five out of the 12 constituencies in the country with the highest levels of unemployment are in greater London. Greater London is awash with work. Employers are crying out for people to do jobs, and people will not take on those jobs. The problem in London is not a problem of unemployment. It is a problem of unemployment culture, and it is brought about by the Socialist authorities who produce those dreadful housing estates which they maladminister. They produce this dreadful education which inculcates attitudes of despair, irresponsibility and dependence. The jobs are there and the people are not taking them. They have been prepared by Socialism not to take those jobs.
There is a problem in this country. It is a problem to which we shall address ourselves during the general election campaign. It is the problem of Socialism.

Mr. Don Dixon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on initiating this important debate and on the cogent, honest and constructive way in which he moved the motion.
The quality of life is important to Opposition Members as it is to the majority of the people, and it has fallen drastically since the Government were elected eight years ago. There are 6 million people who live in families which have been out of work for 12 months. These people are not statistics; we are talking about potential wage earners who have families, and their quality of life has fallen. Millions of pensioners have suffered since this Government changed the Labour Government's social security legislation, which stated that pensions should increase in line with the rise in earnings or the rise in prices, whichever was the higher. The Government have stolen £11 billion from pensioners by changing social security legislation.
The Government have created or encouraged low pay and 6 million are receiving low wages. Their pay is lower than the decency threshold that was laid down by the Council of Europe. If low pay creates employment, there should be no unemployment in the northern region, which has some of the lowest pay in the United Kingdom. With the introduction of their Wages Act 1986, the Government have helped the spread of low pay by abolishing the Truck Acts and curtailing the activities of wages councils.
The Government argue that those who are highly paid will work harder only if they are given incentives and that those who are in receipt of low pay should be penalised to make them work harder. That is why the new managers in the National Health Service have been given a £60 a week bonus on their £30,000 salaries to make them more efficient. At the same time ancillary workers who are earning about £60 a week have been penalised by the introduction of privatisation. The Government believe that that will make them work harder. Under this Government one person's incentive is another person's poverty trap.
On south Tyneside, the area which I represent, there are 7,000 on the housing waiting list. If there are 7,000 applications, there are 7,000 families in need. This year the south Tyneside local authority will be building 26 houses. That is the result of the Government's decision to cut the housing investment programme allocation. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you were a Department of the Environment Minister when I was chairman of the South Tyneside housing committee, when 700 houses were built in a year. In 1978–79, there was an HIP allocation of £14·9 million to cope with price increases and the rate of inflation. To maintain that level of spending would require an HIP allocation of £27·9 million this year, and south Tyneside received only £4·8 million. As I have said, there are 7,000 applicants on the housing list.
I recall a time when it was possible to walk across the Tyne from ship to ship. Ships were being repaired and others that had only recently been launched were being fitted out. The only ship now in our region is hardship. There is hardship for the thousands who are out of work, for the thousands of pensioners who have had their pensions reduced by the Government, for young people who are leaving school with no prospect of employment, for the thousands who are waiting for houses, when local authorities are not being given the money that is necessary to enable them to build houses, and those who are in the long queue waiting to go into hospital for operations. Hardship is the only ship in the northern region or on the Tyne nowadays.
My hon. Friends have referred to what the next Labour Government will do. We arc determined to ensure that every family will have a decent home. We shall improve the quality of housing and the number of houses built. We shall ensure that new houses are built by providing councils with the necessary moneys to build, to repair and to carry out maintenance and improvement works.
The next Labour Government will deal with the massive increase in crime by providing crime prevention grants to all tenants and home owners. We shall extend the victim support scheme and reverse the cuts that the Government have imposed on the criminal injuries compensation scheme.
We shall work towards achieving universal provision of nursery education for all three and four-year-olds. We shall reduce class sizes and provide greatly improved equipment for schools. We shall create a two-year foundation course in education and training for all 16 to 19-year-olds. We shall open up higher and further education to a far wider cross-section of the population.
We shall assist pensioners by raising the weekly single pension by £5 and the married pension by £8. We shall introduce a winter premium of £5 a week to help with the cost of fuel bills for pensioners who are on supplementary benefits. The full state earnings-related scheme will be retained. We shall invest in improved health care, meals on wheels, home helps and social services.
Government Members will want to know where the money will come from. They say that there is no money available to do these things but the reality is that there is plenty of it. It is costing £20 billion to keep 3 million on the streets. It costs £1 billion a year to maintain the EEC food mountains. It costs £600 million to flog off cheap butter to the Russians. The cost of Trident is £10 billion, and that money is being spent in the event of those well-fed Russians attacking us. That is the sort of thing that we

have had from this Government. Those who live in the area that I represent have been losing out while others have been prospering.
Since the Government were elected, top directors and executives receiving £70,000 a year or more have been given tax handouts of £19,100 a year—some £370 a week. At the same time the people that my hon. Friends and I represent have been suffering. There is plenty of money around but the trouble is that the Government have given it to their friends. We shall ensure that the next Labour Government look after our people.

Mr. Frank Haynes: It seems that whenever I contribute to a debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am limited to about three minutes. I found myself in that position last Friday.
I listened carefully to the hon. Members for Crawley (Mr. Soames) and for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). I have listened to them before, especially the hon. Member for Northampton, North, who confines himself to attacking the Labour party. He never advances any Conservative policies. He talks about being a member of a caring Conservative party. It is not caring and he is certainly not caring, especially in the light of what he had to say this afternoon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) made a first-class contribution to the debate. His various arguments went home one by one as he spoke on behalf of his constituency and the nation generally.
The hon. Member for Crawley reckoned that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) dropped in from cloud-cuckoo-land underneath a parachute. At least he dropped in, and at least he understands the realities. The hon. Member for Crawley merely stood up in cloud-cuckoo-land, and that was reflected in his speech. The hon. Member for Crawley is not aware simply because he lives in the stockbroker belt—he comes from that belt. He does not understand poverty.

Mr. Soames: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Haynes: I will not give way in the short time that is available to me. The hon. Gentleman has not had to want for anything——

Mr. Soames: I live in Lambeth.

Mr. Haynes: We who live out in the sticks know what poverty is about. I know—I was born into it. I see it in my constituency and it bothers me that the Conservative Government are not prepared to move in the right direction. I hope to God that when the electorate get the opportunity on 11 June they will kick the Tories out. Let us have a Government who will do something for those people who need help. For the past eight years the Government have helped their friends—they have poured money into the pockets of the rich and pinched it from those who need it.
In my constituency there are elderly people living in three-bedroomed houses—widows and single pensioners—when they should be in a flat or a bungalow. The end result is that young married people cannot get accommodation. However, the money is there. My local authority has not built any bungalows or flats for elderly people since that lot on the Conservative Benches came


into office. When we get into power we aim to change all that in the interests of those people who need accommodation.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) that the elderly people of this country have made their contribution. Those people fought in the last war of 1939–45, some fought in the war of 1914–18. They offered their lives to the nation, but look how the Tories are treating them. We shall put that right at the first opportunity.
In my constituency the pits have been closed down, but nothing has followed. Young lads go on to the dole queue because they cannot get work. The Conservatives talk about caring, but my health authority has a mile-long queue of people who want hearing aids. People are living longer and longer and we are getting a larger elderly population, but, at the same time, there are cuts in health services. The end result is that the elderly are suffering because they cannot get the things that they need—one of them is hearing aids. This will continue while that lot on the Conservative Benches are in power.
I asked the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) whether he would tell the electorate about wheeling in Ministers on a Friday to vote down a Bill for the extension of services for the disabled. Not long ago that happened again when all the Ministers were wheeled in to vote down the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to provide free television licences for pensioners who have given their lives for this nation. That Bill was voted down. The elderly people will remember that. Indeed, they told me about it in my constituency. It has sunk in.
I could go on and on, but time does not allow. It would be unfair to the Front Bench spokesmen, who intend to reply, if I were to continue. However, I believe that some hon. Members are greedy. They take more and more time to put forward their proposals and the end result is that people like me who sit on the Back Benches do not get the opportunity to make a contribution. Our contributions are important for those whom we represent.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: We have had a lively and interesting debate. I suspect that that is appropriate, given what the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) called the exciting times in which we live.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) not just on his success in the ballot, but also on his foresight in proposing such a motion on the day when the Prime Minister announced the date of the general election. It was almost as if my hon. Friend had had private talks at Downing street and knew which motion to put before the House. I also congratulate him on the way in which he introduced the motion. He enabled the House subsequently to enjoy a wide-ranging discussion.
We have heard from a number of my hon. Friends and each of them demonstrated a deep concern and a deep knowledge of their constituencies. It is not surprising that they have been elected as Labour Members of Parliament, and it will be no great surprise to see them all back in this House after the election on 11 June.
The hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) entertained us all in his normal style. I found his speech a passable impression of a parody of a Member of Parliament. It would have been useful if, during his speech, he had referred to some of the harsh economic facts that I put in front of him. Unfortunately, the central office script and the clichés it contained did not allow him to extend his brief that far.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes), who is no longer present in the Chamber, made a balanced speech in what was her valedictory contribution to the House. The hon. Lady sat demurely upon the fence, and never answered the question that will be crucial in the next month. On which side will she jump? On which side will the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), the leader of the SDP, jump? On which side will the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) jump? The hon. Lady said she had an easy answer to that question: she was too inexperienced and too recent a Member of the House to offer any suggestions. I believe that the electors of Greenwich and the electors in every other constituency have the right to know the answer to that question. Will the alliance jump for the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition? Will that be the choice? If so, how will they make that choice? It is a clear choice and we need a clear answer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton discussed how the quality of life in Britain has deteriorated. My hon. Friend will recall the definition of poverty used by the Church in the "Faith in the City" report. They characterised poverty in three ways—lack of money, lack of dignity and loss of rights. I believe that, judged by those three criteria, the Government have increased poverty, impoverished our people and, as a result, impoverished this country.
A number of my hon. Friends have pointed out that there are now more than double the number of people living on supplementary benefit than was the case when the Government came to office in 1979. Each of them faces the difficulty of managing his or her affairs. Very often they face the humiliation of making an application to the local Department of Health and Social Security office. They are not treated in the same way as the Government have treated the City swindlers on the question of VAT. Some of my hon. Friends noted a report last week that stated that the City had been able to slip £1 billion through the VAT loophole. There is one rich law for those in the City and one poor law for those claiming supplementary benefit. Those of my constituents and my hon. Friend's constituents who are making claims for single benefits find that they are missing out on the essentials of life because of the Social Security Act 1986. Not for them the treatment given to the Government's rich friends in the City of London.
The biggest single factor in the increase in poverty is the increase in unemployment and the increase in long-term unemployment. We are about to have a June election. I suspect that one of the reasons for that is that we are all aware that the long-term prospect for unemployment—on non-massaged figures—is that it will continue to rise. The House does not need to take my word for it. It can take the word of the Oxford Economic Forecast for the United Kingdom, an independent organisation that published figures last week showing an anticipated increase in unemployment during 1987, 1988 and subsequent years.
The Government say, "We have tried". The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said that it was a great problem and the hon. Member for Crawley said he was deeply concerned. The Conservatives claim they have tried for eight years, but during that time unemployment has trebled. One of two conclusions can be drawn from that statement. Either the Government are shedding crocodile tears and have no concern or sympathy for the unemployed or they are simply incompetent and do not know how to handle Britain's economic affairs. Perhaps it is a mixture of both. They are insensitive, they are unsympathetic, but, above all else, they are incompetent.
In 1980, the Prime Minister said:
We are reaching the trough of the recession and it will start to turn down towards the end of next year.
At that stage, the unemployment figure was 1·6 million. The figures have subsequently been massaged, but the level of unemployment has doubled. If the economic recession was turning down in 1980 and the Prime Minister was right, what has happened subsequently is an unrivalled record of incompetence in the history of democratic government. The Government have offered no hope and no future for many of our people. They have placed a whole generation in some areas of the country into a situation in which they have little to look forward to, little in terms of skills and little in terms of prospects. That is the damage that the Government have caused. That is why the quality of life has been reduced for many people.
My hon. Friend also talked about the loss of dignity that has occurred for many of our citizens—a loss of dignity that impoverishes the quality of life. We as Members of Parliament see that loss of dignity day in, day out in our constituencies. More than 1 million people are on housing waiting lists. The elderly are living in totally unsuitable accommodation. Young families in my constituency are living in high rise blocks with no possibility of moving or transferring into suitable accommodation because the Government have cut housing investment programme allocations to Leeds by more than 66 per cent. That is the Government's record and that is the loss of dignity that is involved.
The Government talk about the elderly. They talk about the problems in the National Health Service. They talk about youth training schemes that lead nowhere and further reduce dignity. Such talk comes from a party that espouses the rhetoric of opportunity. The Government tell us time and again that they are the party of opportunity. Where is the opportunity for the elderly people in my constituency who, this winter, will decide whether they can afford to put on their heating? Where is the opportunity for the young unemployed people who have had no work and no prospect of work? Where is the opportunity in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon)? He talked about what has happened to basic industries in his constituency. The only opportunity that the Government have fostered and encouraged is the opportunity for a small number to do well on the backs of the vast majority of people. On that criterion, the Government have also impoverished and weakened our society.
Let me consider the third matter, the loss of rights. The Government have indulged in an unprecedented attack on civil liberties and on democracy. Let us consider the list since 1983. There has been the loss of the basic right to belong to a trade union at GCHQ.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fatchett: I shall not give way. We are short of time.
For 18 million people in the metropolitan counties and the Greater London area there has been the loss of a fundamental right to vote. Who would have believed that a democratic Government would come to the House without embarrassment and take away that major and important right? They have taken from nearly 400,000 teachers the fundamental democratic right to negotiate with their employers. In the Wright and Westland affairs they have shown themselves to be obsessed with secrecy, making sure that each and every decision is taken behind closed doors and is not subject to democratic accountability.
We have been told that if the Prime Minister is fortunate enough to win a third term of office the Cabinet is to be dried out. All the remaining wets in the Government are to disappear. In this morning's issue of The Independent, Anthony Bevins states:
no one crosses Margaret Thatcher and gets away with it.
It is no wonder there has been an attack on democratic rights. In this Prime Minister, we have somebody who believes in a centralised authoritarian approach to government. That is the record so far—an increase in real poverty, a loss of dignity and a loss of democratic rights for our people. What will happen if the Government have a third term?
My hon. Friend mentioned many of the hidden items in the Tory agenda. For instance, there is no denial of the increase in VAT. We know that the Prime Minister quite happily talks about a poll tax. From figures, we know that in a city such as Leeds, for instance, poll tax will discriminate and divide. It will enable the rich to pay less and the less-than-well-off to pay more. The figures in Leeds are simple. Some 27 per cent. of electors, concentrated mostly in Tory areas, will pay less, and 73 per cent. of the electorate will pay substantially more because of the poll tax. As the hon. Member for Northampton, North said, these are exciting times.
During the next month, the Labour party will make sure that it is able to bring the arguments to the British electorate. We shall say to the electorate that the Government have divided and impoverished our society in a way that nobody would have contemplated eight years ago. It has created a crime-ridden, bitter and cynical Britain in which the values of care and mutual help are denigrated and in which a "get-quick" approach, regardless of the consequences, is exalted.
Over the next month, we shall offer the vision and hope of a different Britain, in which the young accept their responsibilities for the elderly, the employed for the unemployed, the healthy for the sick, and the strong for the weak. Our appeal will be unashamedly for the moral ground. Only by developing a sense of moral purpose for our country can we marry efficiency with social justice, lessen division and conflict and improve the quality of life for our citizens. It is only because Labour offers such a vision of the future that we can look forward to a Labour victory and make 11 June liberation and freedom day for our people.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): As the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said, it has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. He listened, as I certainly have, to the speeches that have been delivered


this afternoon. If he were honest, he would have to admit that the contributions from the Opposition side have been woefully inadequate, whereas, despite the fact that I shall be biased, I must pay a warm tribute to my colleagues, whose contributions have been of a high standard. The debate has had such an impact on me that when next I am given an opportunity to vote on the televising of Parliament I shall vote for it. If the nation had heard the contributions to the debate and what was said by my hon. Friends, even the Opposition would give us a bye in the general election. That is a fact, not hypothesis.
The quality of life means different things to different people. The motion moved by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) focused on a few elements. They were jobs, the National Health Service, investment in housing, schools, and pensions. We have heard from other hon. Members what they consider to be important in determining the quality of life of our citizens. Of course, all such matters are important. Everyone is concerned, and rightly so, about health, housing, education and perhaps, above all, about their ability to contribute to society and to earn their livelihood in employment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said, there is no debate about such basic truths. That is not the debate. The real debate is about two matters. It is about what role Government—any Government—can and should play in determining the quality of life of its citizens. It is about the Government's record in the areas in which they have a role. It is a record of which I am proud to speak today. In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) made it clear that, like every other nation, our economic prosperity and, therefore, our quality of life depend on the goods and services that we produce.
There is no short cut to prosperity. Prosperity is based on the skills, talents, enterprise and sheer effort of millions of individuals. It follows the creation of wealth. Wealth creation means selling goods and services in the open market, both at home and abroad, against fierce competition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent suggested. To sell abroad means not just getting price and quality right, although that is vitally important, but convincing customers overseas that we can deliver on time and to specification.
Under the last Labour Government, we lost that reputation. United Kingdom industry became a by-word for strikes and bad industrial relations. What price the quality of life then, I ask the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie)? That period has now passed, but it could so easily return in the disastrous event of a Labour Government being elected. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) stated, the true role of Government is to create the conditions which allow wealth creation to flourish. This we have done. We have halted the runaway growth of public spending, while spending more on key priorities such as health, law and order, and education. We have cut Labour's penal rates of personal taxation and we have abolished others, such as the national insurance surcharge, which was not even mentioned by Labour Members. We have abolished Labour's tax on jobs. We have cut Government borrowing and have taken giant strides towards driving inflation out of the economy. We have significantly encouraged enterprise and the growth of small businesses, about

which, again, we did not hear a single word from Labour Members. There is a good reason for that. They do not understand enterprise and small firms. They never have. Enterprise and small firms were not included in their last manifesto. I hope that they have woken up to the fact that they will have to include them in the manifesto that they will produce shortly.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley said, there is much more to be done. No one would be so arrogant as to assume that it has all been done. There is an awful lot to be done. But what the Government have already achieved is now showing results. Our economy is now producing more than ever before. We have had the longest period of continuous growth since the 1973 oil price rise. [Interruption.] During the 1980s, we have grown faster than any other major European country—a sharp contrast with the 1960s and the 1970s when the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) was in power. I do not think he has anything to shout at from his sedentary position or from any other. Manufacturing output has grown for the past six years and during the 1980s our growth in manufacturing productivity has been the highest of the seven major industrial countries.
Rather than recite all the favourable indicators that we are now seeing on investment, competitiveness, profitability, the creation of new businesses, overseas assets and bank lending rates, perhaps I could endorse the latest Confederation of British Industry survey, the most optimistic survey for many years, as recommended reading for Labour Members who doubt what I have been saying.
I shall now address a few points that have been raised as quickly and precisely as I can. The hon. Member for Heeley talked about trying to create more jobs. He talked about what the Labour party would try to do, what would be in its manifesto and about I million new jobs. The Government have done precisely that already, and they intend to continue to do that. There have been more than I million new jobs since March 1983 and vacancies are 25 per cent. higher than last year.

Mr. Michie: Paid jobs?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman says, "Paid jobs?" He and his hon. Friends continually refer to the fact that it is wrong for the self-employed in this country to be taken out of the unemployment count. Does the hon. Gentleman have the guts to tell someone who is self-employed that he is not doing a serious job? He might just get a dusty answer. He would be the last person to know anything about self-employment and enterprise.
Employment has grown for 15 successive quarters—the longest period of continuous growth for almost 30 years. Employment growth since March 1983 is higher than in the rest of the European Community combined. It is important that we get this message across, and over the coming weeks we shall do that. Unemployment has fallen for eight successive months by nearly 180,000 and is now at the lowest level since September 1984. Unemployment seasonally adjusted has fallen by 25,000 per month on average over the last six months, which is the fastest fall since 1973, and faster than any other industrial country.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) referred to fiddling of the figures. She, along with other Opposition Members, ought to be reminded that the last change in March 1986 was to remove substantial over-recording of people who had already left the count. It was


a once-and-for-all change well before unemployment started falling. One of the changes we have made is to take those people who were regarded as being self-employed out of the unemployment count. Why should we not do that?
In view of the criticism we have received about the level of unemployment now falling and the success of Government measures over the past eight months, my right hon. and hon. Friends could be forgiven for suggesting that perhaps Labour Members did not want to see the fall in the level of unemployment, that they did not want us to succeed and that they are upset about the fact that we have succeeded.
The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), who talked about the quality of life, ought to be reminded that when the Labour party was last in office a married man with two children on average earnings had an increase in real take-home pay of only half of 1 per cent. Under the Government there has been an increase in real take-home pay of nearly 18 per cent. since 1979. Someone similarly placed on half average earnings has had an average increase of 15 per cent. compared with an increase of only 4 per cent. under Labour. What price quality of life under the Labour Government?
Since 1979, resources for education have reached record levels. In 1986–87, education spending totalled £16 billion. Spending per pupil increased from £895 in 1979 to £1,065 in 1985, an increase of 19 per cent. in real terms, compared to a fall of 1·6 per cent. between 1974 and 1979 when the Labour Government were last in office.
I say to the hon. Member for Leyton that all responsible political parties should be concerned with improving the quality of life of all citizens. I stress the word "responsible" because any responsible party elected to Government would regard as its first and principal priority the defence of this nation and of its people. That must be the first priority. Compared to that, everything else comes second. If we do not have a credible defence policy, it is futile to talk about the quality of life or even life itself. During these coming weeks, we shall highlight the differences between ourselves and the Socialists, and between ourselves and the

alliance on the issue. We shall also highlight the difference within the alliance between the SDP and the Liberals on the subject.
The second priority for any responsible Government must be to create the right economic environment in which industry can succeed. Governments do not create wealth, but people in industry, trade and commerce do. That point seems to have been lost on the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. It is vital that we build on the success achieved. Our gross domestic product is at the highest level ever in our seventh successive year of economic growth. This is the only way that we can produce the necessary money that we need to see spent on improvements in health care, pensions, housing and schools to continue to improve the quality of life for all. It is demonstrably daft substantially to tax out of all existence those industries and individuals whose enterprise provides that money at the end of the day. Yet both the Socialists and the alliance make clear that they intend to do just that. They never learn. The last Labour Government, propped up by the Liberals, presided over a stagnant economy in which industry simply could not provide the wherewithal for that Government to spend on improving the quality of life in the nation.
Even with the disgrace of borrowing from the International Monetary Fund, they had to impose massive cuts in the Health Service capital spending programme. They decreased teachers' salaries by 13 per cent. in real terms compared to the increase of 27 per cent. that we have given during the period that we have been in office. That stagnant economy meant that they were able to increase pensioners' net income by only 0·6 per cent. a year in real terms, compared to the increase of 2·7 per cent. under us. They even had to resort to withdrawing the pensioners' Christmas bonus, a particularly mean and spiteful thing to do and not worthy of any responsible Government. I do not know——

It being Seven o'clock the Proceedings on the motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Arrangement of public business).

Business of the House

7 pm

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Further to my statement earlier today, the business for the rest of the week will now be as follows:
TUESDAY 12 MAY—Committee and remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Remaining stages of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Family Law Reform Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Local Government Bill followed by proceedings on the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to Commons amendments to the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill [Lords].
Proceedings on the Housing (Scotland) Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
Motion on the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) (No. 2) Order.
Motion on the Employment Subsidies Act 1978 (Renewal) (Great Britain) Order.
At Ten o'clock the Question will be put on all outstanding Supplementary Estimates and Votes.
WEDNESDAY 13 MAY—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
Committee and remaining stages of the Consumer Protection Bill [Lords].
Committee and remaining stages of the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Bill.
Motion on the Lord Chancellor's Salary Order.
Motions on the Channel Tunnel Bill, the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill and the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill.
THURSDAY 14 MAY—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Parliamentary and Health Service Commissioners Bill.
Proceedings on the Irish Sailors and Soldiers Land Trust Bill [Lords], followed by Committee and remaining stages of the Territorial Sea Bill [Lords].
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Registered Establishments (Scotland) Bill, which is a private Member's Bill.
FRIDAY 15 MAY—The House may be asked to consider any other Government business before being adjourned.

Mr. Peter Shore: In observing the reactions to the right hon. Gentleman's statement and to the trailer that he gave at half-past three, I was reminded of the saying of Sir Robert Walpole on the day of the outbreak of the war of Jenkin's Ear. Listening to the crowds crying behind him and in front of him, Sir Robert said:
They now ring the bells, but they will soon wring their hands.
I am sure that we all share the sense of occasion, both because we have heard the last business statement of this Parliament and because we have listened to the swan-song of a very civilised Leader of the House. The change of

business is welcome. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government have lost four fifths of their Finance Bill, most of the Criminal Justice Bill, and all but a few clauses of the Local Government Bill, and that they will get the Scottish poll tax Bill only if they successfully vote us down on the guillotine motion on Wednesday?
Will the Leader of the House also confirm that the Opposition have prevented the railroading of the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Orders Nos. 2 and 3 which at virtually the last moment would have changed the boundaries of no fewer than 50 constituencies, including several marginals? This is deathbed gerrymandering.
For the promotion of greater understanding, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we are right in believing that Dissolution will take place before the House meets on Monday and that there will be no Prorogation ceremony?

Mr. Biffen: I shall deal first with the right hon. Gentleman's last point. It is anticipated that the House will adjourn on Friday and that Parliament will be dissolved before 2.30 pm on Monday 18 May. In those circumstances, the House will not have to meet on Monday 18 May. I can confirm that there will be no Prorogation ceremony.
The right hon. Gentleman made several other points. In all charity, I hope that he will attend to these matters of controversy with rather more professionalism when he gets to the hustings in the east end. Any attempt to judge from some esoteric references and a historical analogy with Walpole about the wringing of hands comes down to the real question: who will be wringing whose hands?
It would have been most high-handed to seek to secure the passage of the entire Finance Bill and of the entire Criminal Justice Bill during the few days that are left in this Parliament. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that these are all matters of sound legislation deferred and will be there for the next Parliament to confirm with an appropriate majority.
The right hon. Gentleman tried to manufacture a most extraordinary stone wall with a few wisps of straw in suggesting that there was some design to railroad the Bill on parliamentary boundaries. Even though we have had some unseemly precedents from the Opposition, there was never any question of the House being invited to confirm boundary changes of the character that he identifies within a few days of the House being dissolved.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Does the Leader of the House anticipate that the usual channels will agree that the Landlord and Tenant (No. 2) Bill should get Royal Assent?

Mr. Biffen: I shall look at that, but my hon. Friend will find that that Bill is in another place.

Mr. David Alton: Will the Leader of the House confirm that all but about a dozen clauses of the 130-clause Criminal Justice Bill have been dropped? Does he not believe that it would have been better to drop the proposals to bring in the new Scottish rating procedures rather than use a guillotine which will be unpopular in many parts of the House? The Leader of the House suggested yesterday in a television interview that arrogance in government is an unacceptable practice. That very arrogance will be shown in pushing through this unpopular poll tax measure.

Mr. Biffen: When the House has a chance to see what part of the Criminal Justice Bill will be presented for consideration and determination, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will believe that the clauses are well worth the support of the House. If the alliance parties decide to vote against them, that will be noted and will take its place in the election campaign. As for the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill, the timetable motion that made provision for supplementary orders was passed on 11 February. That is known to be a central part of the Government's policy, and they are perfectly entitled to take the measures that they now propose.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the motion on the Channel Tunnel Bill be wide enough to enable the Government to make a statement on the discussions over the weekend between British Rail and the Channel Tunnel group, or will it be purely procedural? In view of the short time allowed for the remaining stages of the Consumer Protection Bill, can my right hon. Friend ensure that the Minister concerned will show the same flexibility and charm to Conservative Front Benchers with minor reservations about some aspects of the Bill as he has shown to Opposition Members?

Mr. Biffen: I have admired the ability of my hon. Friend to elicit charm and co-operation from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the Consumer Protection Bill, and I am sure that that will continue over the next few days. As for his point about the Channel Tunnel Bill, whether he can make the points that he wishes to make will be in the determination of the Chair.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Leader of the House say a brief word about the effect of his statement on the meetings of Committees upstairs?

Mr. Biffen: I am advised that Committees set to meet this week to consider Bills and statutory instruments will do so, with the exception of Standing Committee A, on the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Bill, and Standing Committee D, on the Consumer Protection Bill. Those two Committees will now be taken on the Floor of the House. Committees set down for next week will obviously not sit.

Mr. David Harris: As we shall clearly have all the parliamentary time in the world between now and the end of the week, may I take it that one of the measures that my right hon. Friend may have in mind for Friday is the one foreshadowed by our right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on Saturday—the long overdue intention to deal with the penetration of our fishing fleet by foreign interests? Will it be taken in all its stages on Friday? If my right hon. Friend is going to disappoint me, will he give an assurance that the measure will be at the top of the Government's list of priorities when they are returned with a massive majority on 11 June?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend played an active part in campaigning for that legislation. I can confirm his second supposition, and will see whether his first question can be met.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: May I express my commiserations with the right hon. Gentleman, who has been an excellent, witty, pleasant and fairly fair Leader of the House, on his final disappearance from the Front Bench? May I also say, however, that we shall feel much

less regret about the political demise of most of the Government Front Bench? Is not the conglomeration of rubbish that we have to get through this week one of the best reasons for fixed-term Parliaments?

Mr. Biffen: I shall have to observe the generous premise to the hon. Gentleman's question—which. however, will do me no good whatever in Shropshire, North. As to the fixed Parliament argument, such arguments will doubtless go on. However, as it is now one of the prized arguments of the alliance parties, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman sees himself in a future bridge-building role.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: We have heard about the ringing of bells and the wringing of hands, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important question is who will be kissing hands after the election? Are we not all agreed that it will be my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), and that she will remain the first Minister of the land?

Mr. Biffen: That is a most pertinent observation.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Leader of the House agree that the Gracious Speech has been virtually decimated by his statement today? How many of the proposals in the Gracious Speech have been carried through in the present Parliament? Not only has the right hon. Gentleman's statement today decimated the Government's legislative programme, but for the past two months, in preparation for this cut-and-run election, Secretaries of State have come to the Dispatch Box abandoning statements and proposals made in the Queen's Speech—notably the Secretary of State for the Environment, who abandoned the proposal for the privatisation of water. Is it not true that the Government have been preparing for an opportunist early election for the past three months?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the business for the remainder of this week confirms the passing of a substantial amount of legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Questions should be confined to the business for the rest of this week.

Mr. Tim Smith: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the clause in the Finance Bill that, above all others, highlights the difference between the Conservative and Labour approaches to taxation, clause 20, which reduces the standard rate of tax from 29 per cent. to 27 per cent., will be secure?

Mr. Biffen: I have absolutely no doubt that it will be secure.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why can we not have a statement on the Guinness affair? Is it because the Leader of the House and Ministers are once again dragging their feet and do not want the matter to be debated in Parliament? In so far as the Guinness affair, and a number of other City scandals of the past few years, will come centre stage in the next general election campaign as we show up the deficiencies in contemporary Conservativism, why cannot the Leader of the House ensure that the House has the opportunity to debate those matters before the weekend?

Mr. Biffen: I have presented a fairly brisk programme to the House for the remaining few days——

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Drop the poll tax.

Mr. Biffen: Of course, I take note of the hon. Gentleman's request that there should be a statement on what he likes to call the Guinness affair.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that on Tuesday, when we debate the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, two amendments tabled in my name—if they are judged to be in order and are called—will give us an opportunity to talk about the Guinness affair?

Mr. Biffen: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's guidance. I am sure that it will not be lost on Opposition Members.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will the Leader of the House confirm that he will be asking you, Mr. Speaker, to give preference in the debates during the remainder of the week to those droves of Conservative Members who will not be re-elected on 11 June?

Mr. Biffen: I am happy to confirm that I have never sought to give guidance to you, Mr. Speaker, on who should be called to speak.

Mr. Keith Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether there will be a statement before the end of the week on Government launch aid for the A330/A340 project?

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I cannot answer immediately, but I shall refer it to my right hon. Friends who will be making any such decision.

Mr. Peter Pike: Will the Leader of the House tell us why it is not gerrymandering to withdraw the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) No. 3 Order, when it was named for business on Thursday of last week and was tabled only a few days after the No. 2 order? It would appear that only the No. 2 order is to be taken. The other order deals merely with minor anomalies which it would be sensible to put right.

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is a fair controversialist, will acknowledge that the Home Secretary has an obligation to lay such matters. Whether Parliament then proceeds is a different consideration.

Mr. Tony Banks: First, will the Leader of the House tell us what will be the procedure for dealing with the private business that was due to be discussed tomorrow, and the 30 or so private Bills before the House?
Secondly, may I give the right hon. Gentleman one last opportunity to let his hair down and tell the House the answer to this question? He has announced a great deal of business, and a great deal has fallen. The Government have an overall majority of 138. Although the Opposition welcome the opportunity to go to the polls and defeat the Government, is this not yet another example of too much power lying in the hands of one person—the Prime Minister—who is able to call an election not to serve the interests of the country or the business of the House, but purely to serve the narrow interests of her party? In a democracy, is that not far too much power to reside in one pair of hands?

Mr. Biffen: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that these matters are held in one pair of hands, it is a somewhat naive interpretation of how political authority is exercised.
As for the point that is of more immediate relevance to next week's business, no other private Members' Bill is

coming to us for the consideration of amendments made in another place other than that to which I have referred. In accordance with precedent, such Bills that have reached this advanced stage are afforded an opportunity to be passed, otherwise it is, by convention, not the occasion to find time for private Members' Bills and private Members' business has been lost.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was about to say that I would call those hon. Members who have been rising. I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that a very important debate is to follow the business statement. I urge hon. Members not to make the speeches that they might make during the election but to confine their questions to the Leader of the House to the business for this week.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: It is generally agreed—and I concur with the view—that the Leader of the House is fundamentally an extremely decent man and that he has been an extremely good Leader of the House. As the building of the Channel Tunnel would have a profoundly bad effect on the northeast of England, will he do the decent thing by burying it and leaving it to the next Parliament to decide?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman has made generous but wholly unmerited remarks about me, which leads me to say that he could do so only because of his misconception about the likely future of the Channel Tunnel Bill. What is being proposed will enable the Bill to be available to the next Parliament, and then we shall see what course is taken.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Leader of the House's statement mean that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill will not be passed this week? If so, will he tell his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that immigration officers at ports of entry should stop acting as though the Bill had already become law and that they should revert to the practice that operated before this particularly disgraceful piece of legislation was ever brought before the House? Will he also ensure that at this moment the Kurdish asylum seekers from Iraq are released on temporary admission and that their case is properly considered by the Home Secretary, as he is bound to do within the terms of the Geneva convention?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Bill is in another place. I cannot in any sense accept his comments on Home Office officials, but as he requests that the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should be drawn to his anxieties, I shall see that that is done.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Since my right hon. Friend has said that right hon. and hon. Members will be Members of Parliament until Monday, is he able to say when returning officers will be able to issue the documents so that hon. Members can forward their nominations, bearing in mind that there is to be a bank holiday?

Mr. Biffen: I am touched that my hon. Friend should feel that that falls within the responsibilities of the Leader of the House. I do not have the faintest idea what is the answer to his question, but I shall look into the matter and see what can be done.

Nuclear Power

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move,
That this House, recognising the advantages to the country of having a diversity of energy supply, including coal, gas, oil and nuclear power, welcomes the Secretary of State for Energy's decision to give consent to the construction of the Sizewell B PWR and thus recognises the important contribution that nuclear energy is making and will continue to make to the provision of cheap and efficient electricity and the strength of the British economy; also recognises that the industry is a major source of employment; and deplores the policies of the Opposition parties that would sacrifice that employment.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Walker: This is an important debate. In fact, one could argue that it is a historic debate. We on this side of the House have been anxious to hold it, but since the announcement of the Sizewell B decision, one of the most remarkable factors has been the seeming lack of enthusiasm by the Opposition to hold such a debate and discussion. Their passive approach to this problem has been remarkable. Not one Opposition spokesman took part in a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Recently a Committee decided to provide £500 million for British Nuclear Fuels but nobody, either from the Labour party or the alliance, even turned up for the Committee sittings. We have been under no pressure to hold this debate. It was only because we were eager that there should be a debate that time is being provided this evening for it.
The same is true of the protests of our countrymen. Before publishing the Sizewell report, I warned my Department that it must be ready to handle the substantial volume of post that was likely to follow its publication. I announced later that we received fewer than 300 letters. I presumed that people were waiting for my decision before they wrote, but since I made my decision on the Sizewell report, we have received fewer than 100 letters. Therefore, the great campaign that was suggested by the Opposition parties has not taken place.
I want to probe the reasons and to suggest to the House that it is vital for this country always to have available a diverse energy supply, if that is at all possible. We are very lucky, in that we have very good reserves of coal, oil and gas. There is a great deal of activity over energy efficiency and renewable energy, and there is a very substantial nuclear industry.
During the last six years, this Government's policy has been to ensure that all those options remain active and are advanced. The productivity figures now being reached by the coal industry were not dreamt of by the last Labour Government, and, despite the drop in the international price of oil, there has been more exploration for gas and oil reserves in the North sea during the last two years than at any time since exploration started. I welcome the fact that the alliance and the Labour party are now beginning to take an interest in energy efficiency. When the Labour Government were in power—I include the period of the Lib-Lab pact—there was quite remarkable inactivity over energy efficiency.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State tell the House by how much energy consumption was reduced in the last year for which figures are available when the campaign was running?

Mr. Walker: During that year production was rising substantially, the economy was improving and there is plenty of evidence that hundreds of millions of pounds were saved through energy efficiency. I repeat that during the period of the Lib-Lab pact nothing was done about energy efficiency. Their policy was deplorable.
As for renewables, the anti-nuclear lobby—in this connection I include the Opposition's motion—says that the Government should do more about them. While this Government have been in power we have spent £100 million on research into the various forms of renewable energy. Throughout the four years of the Labour Government, and the Lib-Lab pact, the total was not £100 million but £7 million. That shows their total lack of interest in both energy efficiency and renewables.
The nuclear industry has been developing fast worldwide during the last 30 years. In 1956, we embarked for the first time, on the application of nuclear energy for civil purposes. It is remarkable that in 1986 the amount of electricity that was generated worldwide by the nuclear industry equalled the whole of the amount of electricity that was generated in 1956. That shows the enormous role that the nuclear industry has played in the development of energy policies worldwide. The pace worldwide is not declining; it is accelerating. Both the alliance and the Labour party will have to come to terms with the fact that while every one of our major competitors is going down the nuclear route at an accelerating pace they have decided to destroy the nuclear industry in this country.
France has under construction more nuclear reactors than the entire volume of existing British nuclear reactors. Germany is to complete four new nuclear reactors by 1990. Japan has decided to increase its nuclear capacity by 40 per cent. by 1995, and it has decided to embark on a trillion dollar investment programme after that. The United States has completed 13 new nuclear power stations in the past two years and a further 11 are under construction. That dwarfs any programme in this country. The Soviet Union——

Mr. Stanley Orme: Is it not a fact that the United States has not ordered a new nuclear power station for 10 years?

Mr. Walker: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has always accepted that sort of Greenpeace propaganda. Is he really suggesting that the 13 nuclear power stations to be completed in the next two years were all started 10 years ago?

Mr. Kevin Barron: They were ordered.

Mr. Walker: Nonsense. Over a period of five years the Americans will have built and completed 20 to 30 new nuclear power stations. They have a massive nuclear industry.
The Soviet Union has made two important announcements since Chernobyl: first, that it intends to treble its nuclear power programme by 1995 and, secondly, that the programme will involve not Chernobyl-style reactors but pressurised water reactors, because of the safety factors involved. As well as America, Germany, France and the Soviet Union, many Third world countries. including


India, Pakistan and many South American countries, recognise that nuclear power represents the one available untapped energy supply which can be used to develop their economies.
Opposition Members have made a great contribution to the nuclear industry. Labour Governments have given consents and approvals for power stations and until now the Labour party has always supported the nuclear industry. Its present policy is a complete reverse of that. This will be the first general election in which the Labour party has stood on a platform of destroying the nuclear industry. Opposition Members do not concentrate on the need for improving international safety or on the need for better collaboration or on anything other than an energy policy that will eradicate our nuclear industry over the 20 years of the decline of our North sea oil supplies. Having got rid of the oil and gas industry—its reserves will have been used up—the Labour party will make this country totally dependent upon the National Union of Mineworkers. [Interruption]. That is what it is all about. Perhaps we might recall that it was a motion proposed by Arthur Scargill at the last Labour conference that obtained a substantial majority. It said that a Labour Government would eradicate the nuclear industry during the lifetime of a Parliament.

Mr. Allan Rogers: No.

Mr. Walker: That motion was passed by a large majority. I hope that the country will realise that such a policy would massively damage our energy supplies and massively increase their price.

Mr. Barron: What the Secretary of State said about the Labour party eradicating the nuclear industry in five years—in the lifetime of a Parliament—is not true and I ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. Walker: I repeat that at the last Labour party conference a motion tabled by Arthur Scargill to abolish the nuclear industry in the lifetime of a Parliament was passed by a very large majority. Would the hon. Gentleman like to deny that?

Mr. Barron: The policy of the Labour party, formulated at the last conference, was to get rid of nuclear power stations not in five. years but at the end of their own lifetime. The right hon. Gentleman knows that quite well.

Mr. Walker: I know that there were two motions. The motion to which the hon. Gentleman referred was carried but the one that would have made the policy favoured by Mr. Scargill mandatory on the Labour party was lost by a handful of votes. If that handful of votes go in favour at the next conference, that will be Labour party policy.
The nuclear industry has considerable advantages to us. It has the national advantage of being a substantial industry and the industry now has £2·5 billion-worth of export orders. It creates jobs for about 150,000 people, and a further 800,000 people in intensive energy-using industries need the safe, secure and cheap supply of energy that the nuclear industry provides. All those jobs are put in great jeopardy by the Labour party's change of policy. The present policy does not recognise the international potential of the industry. It would be disastrous to eradicate that international potential.
The Labour party is endeavouring to conceal that fact. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) has been going to power stations round the country telling the employees that it will not happen quickly and that their death will be a slow one, so they need not worry in the immediate future. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has one policy for his constituency—where BNFL operates—and another for the shadow Cabinet. He tells his constituents that no Government would be foolish enough to damage such a great industry and that no country interested in its balance of payments would eradicate the enormous foreign earnings of an organisation such as BNFL. However, the very motion that became Labour party policy states categorically that there will be no further imports of nuclear waste for reprocessing. But anyone who knows anything of BNFL knows that its whole investment programme is related to that and that its future expansion depends on it. Therefore, what the Labour party is really saying to those who work for BNFL is that they have a limited future and one of deep and swift decline and that they cannot contribute to the country's balance of paymants as they would under a Conservative Government. Labour Members pretend that they will continue with BNFL for a while only because of the position of one member of their shadow Cabinet.
The alliance nuclear policy is a perfectly typical alliance policy. The Liberal party has been passionately opposed to nuclear energy for a long time. Anybody who has studied the proceedings of the last Liberal party conference knows that the favoured policy was to get rid of the nuclear industry as quickly as possible. However, the Social Democratic party was not quite so keen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] First, the leader of the Social Democratic party was once a member of a Labour Government who strongly supported the nuclear industry and, secondly, it so happens that a member of the SDP represents Dounreay. The SDP would therefore experience some embarrassment if it went into an election campaign saying "Let's get rid of nuclear power." On the one hand here was Liberal party policy, on the other there was SDP policy, and they were brought together to form the great alliance policy. What is that? In the end, the alliance said, "We shall do nothing. We shall consider it and we shall continue to consider it until after the election. Where we have candidates in areas in which the nuclear industry operates, we shall say that it will probably be all right. Where we have a good green vote, we shall probably say that we shall get rid of it." That is a typical, irresponsible alliance policy, which needs to be exposed vigorously in the campaign.
We examined PWRs with great care before embarking upon the programme. Indeed, we held the biggest inquiry that has ever taken place. We have been the motivators in achieving greater international collaboration on safety. The industry, most of which is based in the north-east and north-west of England and in Scotland, now rejoices that we are moving towards the day when we can use our scientific and technical skills in this vital industry. The international application of those skills and the opportunities in worldwide business will be on an enormous scale. During the lifetime of this Government, we have radically improved the coal industry and our oil and gas industries offshore have become the envy of the world. On nuclear energy, we have had to delay to make the fullest possible inquiry. We now give the go-ahead to


create a fine, safe and excellent industry which, the electorate must be aware, the Opposition parties are out to destroy.

Mr. Stanley Orme: We have heard a typical speech by the Secretary of State putting forward the case that he was not able to put forward when we had a debate on Sizewell. The right hon. Gentleman catalogued what had and what had not been done by the Opposition, but he may remember that we made our position clear in the Sizewell debate. I should like to underline and to reiterate what I said on the Labour party's behalf: we will not proceed with the PWR at Sizewell and a future Labour Government would cancel this order. That is the Labour party's position, and I should like to explain in some detail our reasons for taking that decision.
The design of the PWR is being sold to this country by the American company, Westinghouse. Since 1973, a large number of nuclear stations have been cancelled in the United States, 37 of them Westinghouse PWR stations. The Secretary of State went into some detail on the number of nuclear stations coming on stream in the United States, but not one nuclear station has been ordered in the United States in the past 10 years. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Japanese, but Japan, Sweden, Austria, Italy and many other countries are examining their position.

Mr. Peter Walker: I must correct this myth about the United States. I shall give the exact figures. In the United States, over the past three years, 18 new nuclear power stations have been completed; over the past two years, 12 have been completed; and, by 1995, another 13 will have been completed. The construction on the majority of those power stations started after Three Mile Island. That programme dwarfs our programme.

Mr. Orme: The Secretary of State has not refuted the fact that I gave—that not one new order has been placed in the United States in the past 10 years. The attitude of the American electricity utilities to the PWR was summed up by Robert Scherer, the pro-nuclear power chairman of Georgia Power, as reported in Time magazine. He said:
No utility executive in this country would consider ordering one today"—
that is, a Westinghouse PWR. Westinghouse has moved on and is now, in collaboration with a Japanese company, developing another PWR design. We are asked to approve already out-dated technology.
In 1979, the then Conservative Secretary of State for Energy announced a large and rapid expansion of nuclear power. This was, of course, an integral part of the Conservative Government's political programme. However, that has not proved possible. The present Secretary of State for Energy is the first since then to have given consent to the construction of new nuclear capacity. He has clearly explained his hostility to coal as opposed to nuclear, and we take note of that. The decision to construct new nuclear capacity is based, we are told, on cost and need. I did not hear the Secretary of State say anything about cost this evening. Neither of those criteria stands up to scrutiny and we must therefore assume that this decision remains integral to the broader political programme of the Conservatives.
The standards used in determining the cost of nuclear power have always been dubious. The standards used in the inquiry into the construction of a PWR at Sizewell are flawed in a number of ways. First, there are the capital costs. We cannot ignore the record of construction of nuclear power stations in this country. Not a single nuclear power station has been built to cost or has performed to specification. Construction time overruns have ranged from 61 per cent. to 254 per cent. In the United States, the average construction time for a Westinghouse PWR has been 127·6 months compared with the CEGB's 90-month estimate—a 40 per cent. difference. The CEGB claims that the experience of the AGRs is not comparable, yet the construction of the PWR in this country is untried and unproved. The capital costs of Sizewell B have soared since the inquiry closed. The central estimate taken by Layfield was £1·18 billion. The CEGB's latest estimate is £65 million more than that—before a single brick has been laid. Previous experience can lead us to construe only that those costs will continue to escalate.
Secondly, Sir Frank Layfield rejected the CEGB's evidence on competing fuel costs. Two projections which he accepted were those of the National Coal Board on coal prices and the cost impact analysis of the independent company, Cambridge Energy Research Ltd. That evidence was heard by the inspector—note this—in 1983, arid prepared even earlier. Time has moved on and the situation has changed dramatically. Sir Frank Layfield was not able to take those changes into account because of the inquiry's length—I do not criticise that—but the Secretary of State has an obligation to do so. British Coal's estimate on coal prices has almost halved since its 1983 forecast. The fact that fossil fuel prices are now much lower than the central estimates used by Layfield has a crucial impact on the economics of Sizewell.
The Cambridge group, which provided Layfield's committee with an independent model—a model which, he says, was not criticised at the time—has now published a report which takes into account changes since 1983. The Cambridge group said:
the results of our analysis do not correspond with the general economic conclusions drawn from the Sizewell report …it would appear that the probability of coal being able to compete on economic grounds with nuclear power is substantially above the 2·5 per cent. indicated in the Sizewell Report.
The group's report highlighted the economic risks associated with pursuing the nuclear option, particularly in relation to capital cost overruns, exchange rate fluctuations and upward pressure on discount rates. It reached the following conclusion:
Do the results of the study confirm the view often held by senior planners in both government and utilities that nuclear power will inevitably offer significant economic advantages over coal? We believe the answer is 'no'".
We heard not a word tonight from the Secretary of State about the future costs of the PWR. As the analysis by the Cambridge group played such a vital role in the conclusions reached in the Layfield report, is not its up-to-date analysis of the same value to the Government. or is the Secretary of State prepared to accept independent evidence only when it matches the Government's prejudices?
Thirdly, the Layfield report takes no account of the national income, of other resources or of the "fifth fuel"—energy conservation. We have heard a lot tonight about energy conservation. The Labour party has


campaigned vigorously on the issue of conservation and will continue to do so. We look at what has been done by the Government. Much more can and will be done by a Labour Government. Layfield suggested that the Government might consider the effects of the construction of Sizewell B and other PWRs on employment in the coal industry. If that has been done, it certainly has not been made public. The Secretary of State should make public any such review. The exclusion of wider economic considerations, such as job losses and the impact on trade, is yet a further reason to reject the inspector's conclusions.
None of the evidence suggests that the construction of Sizewell will lead to lower electricity bills for the consumer. On the contrary, the latest estimate suggests that it would add to them. The Secretary of State has provided us with no real justification for his decision in the light of those changes and has failed to convince us that, given that the assumption of economic benefits has been destroyed, there is any need for the construction of Sizewell B.
The demand for capacity could be satisfied in other ways, through new coal-fired stations or through the refurbishment of existing ones. To provide alternatives for the future there should be real commitment to developing combined heat and power and renewable sources of energy.
Sir Frank Ladyfield was less than reassuring about safety. After frequent criticisms of the nuclear installations inspectorate and the CEGB on specific safety considerations he concluded that such matters could be left in their hands. He asserted that a catastrophic accident
would almost certainly not occur.
How reminiscent that would sound to those people in the Soviet Union who, before Chernobyl, were told that that could not happen there.
Certainly the reactor type at Chernobyl is different. We are not suggesting that an identical disaster could happen in United Kingdom reactors. I have said on previous occasions, and I repeat now, that the British nuclear industry is probably the safest in the world. Although I say that without equivocation, it does not mean that accidents will not or cannot happen. We must take into account the undeniable potential for human error. Both of the major accidents in nuclear power stations, Three Mile Island in the United States and Chernobyl in the Soviet Union, have been directly attributed to human error. Wherever people control technology, there is the possibility of mistakes.
Other factors contribute to human error. Professor James Reason, the head of psychology at Manchester university, has studied this and concluded that the ingredients for disastrous human error unfortunately prevail in Britain also. He stated:
The systems are complicated and a plague to the people running them … We have operators that don't understand everything that is going on. We have monolithic management structures. We have complex systems that make violations of operating procedures inevitable.
The Government must take that seriously and answer it.
Our nuclear watchdog cannot cope with its work load. In the debate this afternoon, reference was made to Mr. Eddie Ryder, the chief inspector of nuclear installations, who told the Energy Select Committee only last week that the trade union that represents nuclear inspectors stated:
Sizewell will involve more work from the nuclear inspectorate when it can't cope with its present workload".

Nor, on its own admission, does the inspectorate have enough staff and resources to assess the lessons of Chernobyl. Mr. Ryder told the Select Committee:
if we do not keep up, then we may miss something. These problems may accumulate.
I ask the Secretary of State what action he is taking, following Mr. Ryder's statement to the Select Committee?

Mr. Peter Walker: I am delighted to inform the right hon. Gentleman that I took action before that statement was made to the Select Committee. Last September we reviewed the salaries on Mr. Ryder's suggestion and increased them by £3,500. Further recruitment has taken place since then and quite a number of people have been recruited. Mr. Ryder and I share the objective of having 120 inspectors in place by the end of the year. My Parliamentary Secretary discussed with Mr. Ryder the comparative positions and put proposals to the Treasury, which were accepted. Further increases in salary are being made so there is no possibility of the inspectorate not recruiting its full establishment.

Mr. Orme: I welcome that important statement. Mr. Ryder highlighted the problem to the Select Committee and brought it to a head, and if the Government have taken that on board, I shall not criticise that. I am concerned about the safety of those people who work in the nuclear industry. Their safety is essential.
The country is still suffering the after-effects of Chernobyl, and is still paying the price of that. This country is ill-equipped to deal with monitoring the safety of new nuclear power stations. Mr. Ryder raised that issue also. The people of this country have no confidence in the bland assurances given to them by the Government and the CEGB.
The Labour party's opposition to this development has not and will not change. As I have already said, we shall not build the PWR in this country. When the Labour Government come into office we shall cancel any such measure. We shall reduce the risk of nuclear power, not increase it. Contrary to the Government's propaganda, our policy on nuclear power is responsible and realistic.
Our Magnox stations are nearly all over 20 years old. The design of that first generation of nuclear power plant is obsolete and, according to the nuclear inspectorate, would no longer be granted a licence to operate. Corrosion problems have proved worse than the designers expected. The Labour party will turn its attention to such stations. Our plans to phase out those older stations will involve many years of work on decommissioning and will mean more work on reprocessing at Sellafield, with increased emphasis on improving environmental considerations.

Sir Hector Monro: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Magnox stations. I wholly disagree with his comments about safety. In the light of his statement, will he state in which year the Labour party will begin to decommission the two Magnox stations at Calder Hall and Chapelcross?

Mr. Orme: Calder Hall is already in the process of being decommissioned. When I visited it, I met some of the people working on it. I was quoting the comments of the nuclear inspectorate, which stated that today it would not give a licence to a Magnox station. Those were not my words.

Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn): The right hon. Gentleman will recall that some time ago, shortly after Chernobyl,


Greenpeace published a full-page advertisement in several national newspapers listing all power stations, those in the first category that it thought should be closed immediately, and those in the latter category that should be phased out. Is he aware—I thought it was an oversight at the time—that Wylfa in my constituency did not appear on either of the lists? When I contacted Greenpeace about that, it said that it had deliberately omitted it because it was perfectly satisfied about its safety. Why will the right hon. Gentleman's party close down Wylfa and not replace it?

Mr. Orme: I said that we shall assess all the Magnox and older stations and then start to phase them out. That assessment will be made when the Labour party is in government and in a position to decide.
The construction and refurbishment of coal-fired stations will create up to 30,000 jobs, with many more involved in our drive to develop renewable sources of energy and combined heat and power, to carry out a major programme of insulation and draught-proofing of people's homes, and to revive the coal industry. Jobs in power engineering and in research and development into the problems of nuclear waste will be maintained and others created. More staff are clearly needed to ensure the safety of existing nuclear power stations, and to develop methods of decommissioning.
We believe in creating jobs that respond to the needs of the nation, in manufacturing, construction and power generation. That is the basis on which we shall conduct our energy policy. The Government have had an irresponsible and irrational approach to meeting the nation's energy requirements. They have never shown the slightest concern about workers losing their jobs, or about the state of manufacturing industry.
We shall plan to meet the country's needs, to create jobs and to ensure the safety of people and the environment. We welcome the chance to put this issue before the British people at the general election.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I shall be brief and simply mention one or two matters which arose from the investigations of the Environment Select Committee. We almost inevitably concentrated on nuclear waste, so we were bound to learn of the environmental consequences of not following the nuclear road.
It became abundantly clear on an environmental calculation that, provided a nuclear accident was prevented, the production of electricity from nuclear power was considerably more benign than from coal. Coal has inevitable unhappy environmental consequences, even with the scrubbers in place.
The great anxiety about nuclear energy arises from the public's perception of it. It is extraordinary that Sellafield appears in the press month by month and, at times, week by week. We are seeking to cure radiation leaks from Sellafield costing about £250 million, yet less than three times that amount of radiation comes from ill-protected medical equipment which could be cured for a fraction of the cost. It is entirely a matter of public perception.
What we are prepared to agree to by way of danger is also a matter of public perception. By the time the debate has finished in about three hours, two people will have died on the roads, and, by the time we prorogue at the end of the week, about 100 will have died. The public face that with a great deal more equanimity than the much less real problems arising from nuclear power stations.
The Secretary of State said that all our competitors were following this road at varying paces. Indeed, they are following it fast, regardless of what they say. The case of France is most pertinent. Between 50 and 60 per cent. of its electricity is generated by nuclear power and several French nuclear power stations are nearer to where we stand now than is Sizewell. The French will not stop. What is more, whatever nit-picking questions are raised about costs, the French export electricity to every neighbour, including the United Kingdom.

Mr. Michael McGuire: What about the enormous debt involved?

Mr. Miscampbell: I shall not go into the French economy, but it is undoubtedly in remarkably good shape.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that Elecricite de France is the largest corporate debtor in the world and is largely responsible for the fact that France is the third biggest debtor nation in the world? Does he further accept that, although the Secretary of State will not give the figures, the French electricity industry exports at below cost price for economic opportunity?

Mr. Miscampbell: I know that that is said, but extremely acute economists and business men, as the French are, continue with nuclear energy, and they do not do so to court bankruptcy. They can make their calculations as well as anybody.
We, too, must bear in mind what the consequences will be. In my constituency, for example, unemployment is running at 14 per cent., in Whitehaven it is II per cent. and in Preston it is 11 per cent. Will we improve those figures by turning our backs on the technological revolution in this sphere as in every other? We in the Conservative party are not asking that we follow a solely nuclear policy. We are a long way behind many of our competitors and we produce a much lower proportion of energy through nuclear plants. We are merely saying that we should progress steadily down a technical road which will be inevitable in the next century. There is no way that anything else will produce our electricity at competitive prices in the next 50 years.

Mr. Barron: The hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the cost of electricity generation in 50 years' time. Does he know that the Layfield report could hardly look 10 years ahead? The Secretary of State dodged the issue altogether. How can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what the price of electricity generated by any fuel will be in 50 years' time?

Mr. Miscampbell: The hon. Gentleman has mistaken what I said. Obviously, we have coal and there is much cheaper coal in the world which we shall not import. I am saying that it does not matter what the price will be in 50 years' time and that the only way demand for electricity can be met then will be through a nuclear-based industry. There is no possibility of the world producing the electricity required by burning fossil fuels.

Mr. Barron: Talk about Britain.

Mr. Miscampbell: I am taking about the world.
Nuclear energy is inevitable. The Government have taken a modest step and they are right in saying that we should continue down this road because it will give us a balance between coal, which fortunately we have, and nuclear power, which is a path we should follow.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Mr. Speaker, who preceded you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, announced that the amendment in the name of the leader of the Labour party had been accepted. During the past four years, I have become used to hearing that announcement, but it has a couple of consequences that I should like to put on the record. First, it means that the alliance must again choose between voting for a Tory motion and a Labour amendment, although our motion is on the Order Paper. The public should know that opportunities to vote on our amendments are strictly limited. Secondly, I look forward to returning to the House on 15 June when I may speak from a different place and when, perhaps, our amendments will be selected on a more regular basis.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): As the policy of the SDP conference was the same as that of the Conservative party and the policy of the Liberal conference the same as that of the Labour party, should that not make it easy for individual alliance Members to know how to vote?

Mr. Bruce: I am not sure that the Secretary of State has addressed himself to the progress that has been made, but over the next four weeks he will discover that we have a policy on this and every other issue which is clear and coherent and which will command a great deal more support than he and his party would like to see.
Although the Secretary of State for Energy has left the Chamber, I wish to reply to one or two points that he raised. I welcome the great regard that he and, indeed, his colleagues have for the energy of the Liberal party. What we failed to achieve during the 15 months of the Lib-Lab pact would fill three full Parliaments of any normal Government. I appreciate that Tory Members know that we have considerable talent and energy, but it is unreasonable to suggest that, because policies were not implemented at that time, they will not be implemented in future. The real answer to that is, give us a chance to run the country and we shall show what will be implemented.
The Secretary of State made a sarcastic jibe about our apparent commitment to energy efficiency. My personal commitment goes back many years before I was elected to this House. Moreover, energy efficiency is and remains the apex of our policy because it alone achieves most for the least pounds expended. Despite the Government's trumpeting and great publicity about their commitment to energy efficiency, they have achieved little.
The Secretary of State could not answer me other than to admit that during Energy Efficiency Year energy consumption in the United Kingdom rose substantially, although the stated objective of the Energy Efficiency Year was to reduce energy consumption by 20 per cent., which is far more than the growth in the economy would have required. If the policy had been successful, we should have been able to sustain economic recovery and reduce overall consumption. Indeed, most of our continental competitors have not only achieved or gone far towards achieving the first 20 per cent., but are now considering ways of achieving the next 20 per cent. In this sector the Government have failed conspicuously to respond to the challenge.
The Secretary of State referred to the expansion of nuclear power elsewhere. However, with a few conspicuous exceptions most countries—most of which are politically vulnerable and have no alternative sources of energy—are reviewing nuclear power, and nuclear developments are being curtailed. The use of the United States as an example by the Secretary of State is becoming a tired old chestnut which does not stand up to analysis. The reason why nuclear power stations are being completed in the United States is that they have been delayed by so many bankruptcies, cost overruns and design changes, and power stations that should have been completed years ago are still under construction, and many people have been locked into considerable financial disadvantage.
The Secretary of State used the argument that we need to go further and more rapidly down the path of nuclear power because the oil and gas fields are running out. Oil and gas are not major fuels for electricity generation, and they are certainly not the most efficient way of producing electricity, so one does not effectively substitute for the other. I represent a constituency which is heavily dependent on North sea oil activity. We take a dim view of the Secretary of State going abroad, selling our industry short, giving the impression that North sea oil and gas has only about 20 years to run and that our fields are running out. We know that we have considerable potential and a long-term development industry which is not helped by the Secretary of State for Energy implying that it will run out in less than a generation. We know that that is not true.
One point that the Secretary of State omitted when he was throwing about general comments on the Opposition parties was the recent volte face of the Government on the issue of nuclear waste disposal and the exploration for nuclear waste disposal sites. It is fair to say that there is proper and genuine concern on both sides of the House about the problem of nuclear waste. Regardless of whether we develop nuclear power or phase it out, it is a problem that we shall have to address. That point must be acknowledged.
The Government have been panicked by some senior, and some not so senior, Tory Members of Parliament because of the sheer hostility that the dumping proposals have engendered in their constituencies. The Government have now put up a spurious argument for cancelling the proposals on the ground that they were not economically proven. I visited one of those sites at Elstow and as a complete layman I was appalled that anyone could be seriously suggesting that nuclear waste could be disposed of on a site which had a water table less than 6ft below the ground. We are justified in being 'cynical about the Government's attitude in that sector. I accept that it is a problem that we will have to return to collectively and preferably with all-party support. The answer must be deep disposal in safe sites, and, if I can make a Scottish plea, we do not want it on Scottish islands because I can assure the Government that the opposition and hostility to that will be very strong.
I turn to the substance of the debate, the case for Sizewell. The Secretary of State omitted to mention whether Sizewell was to be the first of a generation or was to be one power station in isolation. Other parts of the country would like to know whether the Government would take the recommendation of the Layfield report and


regard Sizewell as a prototype and withhold any further developments until it has been proved or whether they will steamroller further developments.
Sizewell's contribution to our overall energy requirement is small one way or the other and no one can suggest that it is an urgent necessity with regard to supply. The CEGB has shown its concern by ordering coal-fired power stations which it knows it can deliver on time and to a certain cost and specification, which is not yet proven to be the case for Sizewell.
The economic arguments for Sizewell, even at the time of the publication of the Layfield report, were less than convincing. My party's "hostility", to use the Secretary of State's word, to nuclear power has been substantially based on our complete lack of conviction about the economic arguments. It has not produced the cheap electricity that was promised. That has not been the experience of France or other countries. On the contrary, it has often been more expensive than forecast because of delays and overruns. The economic arguments have changed substantially as the price of alternative sources of fuel have fallen, and, given that it was a finely balanced judgment based mostly on subjective figures from the CEGB, there is every reason to deduce that Sizewell is not economic.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that the reason for the Liberal party's hostility to nuclear power was basically an economic one. How does he reconcile that with the motion that was passed at the SDP conference which said:
Subject to a satisfactory outcome of this review we will construct additional nuclear power stations, if and when required".

Mr. Bruce: That is exactly the point. "If and when required" assumes that the economic and safety arguments add up. In the present circumstances neither of them does. That is a perfectly reasonable position to take and is one that the British public would find perfectly acceptable. The argument is quite simple. If it is safe and economic by all means build them, as the Government are doing, but the economics are extremely questionable and safety still remains a matter of concern. We must bear in mind that Sir Frank Layfield did not give Sizewell a clean bill of health on safety grounds. Indeed, he qualified it substantially on safety grounds.
The general thrust of the nuclear industry in the United Kingdom post-Chernobyl has simply been to say that it could not happen here. There has been no review of the evacuation radius of nuclear power stations and no indication that the Government have any idea how to deal with an accident if it happened. The arguments simply seems to be, "We do not need to do that because it could not happen here." That is what the Russians thought, and look what happened to them.

Dr. Michael Clark: The Liberal party's policy seems to be to build nuclear power stations if and when desired. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how soon before they are desired he would contemplate building them?

Mr. Bruce: I am coming to that. If the hon. Gentleman listens to the rest of my speech he will realise that our view is that there are a considerable variety of alternative options which are likely to bear fruit. There are certainly

no pressures on us in the present circumstances to build nuclear power stations in the future, if at all. We have consistently expressed that view.
We believe that the potential for energy saving through conservation is substantial. The Government have endorsed that by producing their own figures but they have failed to come up with a policy that is likely to achieve it. It has been generally accepted, especially in the United States where commercial considerations on power generation are sharper than here, that the best return on investment in the energy and electricity industry is in conservation. One gets a better return for one's dollars or pounds by putting the money into conservation rather than power stations.
I asked the Secretary of State when he announced the go-ahead for Sizewell—he never answered this question—whether he had any idea how much energy could be saved by an investment that was equivalent to the cost of Sizewell. He could not answer that, but the calculations that have been done in the United States suggest that it would be substantially more than the amount of electricity that Sizewell will generate. It would also create a considerable amount of employment in the process and would be more job efficient as well as more energy efficient. That is something which, sadly, the Government have overlooked. They have cut back on matters such as the homes insulation programme and in sectors where a greater degree of comfort as well as efficiency could have been achieved. I often find when I talk to visitors, especially from Scandinavia and some of the other north European countries, that they are amazed when I talk about our problems of black mould, condensation and dripping walls in houses. That is not something that they experience because they design and insulate their houses properly, and thus they can then afford to heat thern adequately.
The other course that we believe has more potential—I hasten to add that experience elsewhere suggests that it would be secondary to the return that one can get from energy efficiency—is the development of alternative renewable energy sources. The Secretary of State has made great play of the fact that he is spending on alternatives some fanciful amount which is far more than anybody else. However, it is still a derisory sum and it is still mostly being spent on research when we are ready to implement a number of alternative energy factors. The particular alternative on which I would be interested to hear a reply, especially if the Secretary of State for Scotland is replying to the debate, is the role of wind energy. I understand that a number of prototype developments in Scotland have proved remarkably successful. The British Wind Energy Association makes the extravagant claim—I report it to the House as such—that we could produce all the energy that we need in Britain more cheaply through wind power than from any other source. I do not necessarily accept that claim, but if I were Secretary of State for Energy I should spend a good deal of time investigating it because if the figures are valid they offer considerable potential. As the Secretary of State for Scotland knows, one of the great pioneers of wind turbines is James Howden of Glasgow, the company having had the opportunity to develop them on the backs of CEGB and hydro board research projects and having secured export orders from California, where such schemes are going ahead due to changes in the tax regime.
I shall not go through all the other alternatives as they are well known. Too often, like is not compared with like. For instance, energy conservation investment is expected to prove itself by normal commercial rate of return while investment in energy generation is required to produce only a 5 per cent. rate of return. If they were put on an equal footing, there would be a massive change in circumstances. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will confirm that such a move should be encouraged.
Sir Frank Layfield also referred to the lack of implementation of combined heat and power schemes in the United Kingdom compared with other countries. To be effective, this requires a move away from massive generating capacity to small and medium-sized units, developed on a co-operative basis between electricity utilities and other enterprises and sited close to built-up areas. Nuclear power stations are too big and, by definition, sited a long way from anywhere, so such efficiency cannot be achieved on any significant scale. That being so, it seems that we have closed our minds against a substantial energy benefit which could be achieved and on which this country is lagging far behind.
Throughout the life of this and the previous Parliament, the Government have shown an excessively political approach to energy. The Secretary of State has boasted that it is his policy not to have an energy policy, implying that the market will solve the question. The greatest enthusiasts for nuclear power are on the Conservative side, although nuclear power is the one area in which the market does not operate. To the extent that a market operates at all, nuclear energy does not obtain funding because nobody wants to take the risk. We have seen a mish-mash of unco-ordinated, incoherent policies, and I do not take it kindly when the Secretary of State for Energy comes to the House in an excitable state, as he did today, and lectures us about energy policy when he has a record of failure to grasp opportunities which could provide far more jobs and export opportunities throughout the country rather than in a few isolated patches than any policy that the Government have put forward.
The Government have totally and abysmally failed to make a case for Sizewell. Nothing that they have said today changes the argument and we remain completely unconvinced.

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) must have a painful posterior from sitting on so many fences and trying to cover the gap between Liberal and SDP policy on nuclear energy. It seems odd for him to say that nuclear power stations should be built if they are economic and safe as Liberal policy seems to be to close them down whether or not they are safe and economic. The hon. Gentleman was also out of touch with regard to emergency plans. He should know that the BNFL installations have extremely up-to-date emergency plans which I am sure have been approved by the Government, although I am convinced that they will never need to be put into operation. As the hon. Gentleman spent so much of his speech talking about conservation, I was surprised that he did not mention the £179 million announced by the Government last week to reduce the likelihood of acid rain from coal-fired stations.
I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is to wind up the debate as nuclear power is important in Scotland. He can take credit, as can the whole of Scotland, for the developments at Dounreay and Hunterston, operating at very high levels of safety, and also Torness in the future. The Government dealt very effectively with the emergency last year and all farmers welcomed the steps taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to help them with the problems that arose.
I appreciate the importance of the Sizewell decision and I entirely support the Government, having looked carefully at the Layfield report which agreed that it should go ahead. I wish to refer to Chapelcross in my constituency. This was the second Magnox reactor and it has been on stream since 1960 producing 190 MW. It is highly efficient—98 per cent. on load and 86 per cent. even including shutdown periods. That is world class efficiency and the reactors are in great shape. The power goes to the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the plant is regularly checked by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and the Health and Safety Executive. The safety record is exceptional, as it should be, and tribute should be paid to the superintendent and his staff.
In responding to my intervention, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) inadvertently misled the House as the two Magnox reactors and Calder Hall and Chapelcross are not being decommissioned. An old test AGR reactor at the Windscale-Sellafield site is being decommissioned, but that has nothing to do with the other two Magnox stations which are producing electricity. The right hon. Gentleman was thus quite wrong to imply that there was any concern about the safety of either station.

Mr. Barron: That is not surprising as no one has been able to produce an up-to-date report on the safety of those stations. That has been going on for years.

Sir Hector Monro: As usual, the hon. Gentleman contributes nothing to the debate. He has been intervening all evening without saying anything sensible.
With no new major power station scheduled to be completed for eight years or so, it is incredible that the Opposition should be talking about running down the industry. France has 70 per cent. nuclear power and Belgium 67 per cent. Sweden, which takes great interest in environmental matters, has 50 per cent. This country has only 19 per cent. Yet the Opposition say that that is too much.
Some experts have referred to the Magnox stations as having a design life of 20 to 30 years, but I believe that that is a matter of accountancy rather than safety. As we approach the election, however, it is an important issue because it is Labour party policy to run down both stations soon and the whole industry over a period with the loss of perhaps 100,000 jobs, not to mention the rise in electricity costs that would result. The Liberal party takes the same view while the SDP sits on the fence. The Scottish National party is against nuclear power, but for electoral reasons it has a different policy for each constituency and is prepared to let Chapelcross continue because that suits the SNP candidate there.
There is no case for a rundown for safety reasons. If the power is required—and on every United Kingdom


analysis it is required—there should be no question of closure provided that the safety standards are met and maintained. Labour Members and others try to curry votes by talking of opening the Canonbie coalfield, and believe that in some incredible way the 650 highly qualified workers at Chapelcross nuclear power station will suddenly become underground workers in a deep mine. That, of course, is absolute nonsense. I checked on the Canonbie coalfield, and the chairman of British Coal, Sir Robert Haslam, tells me that it is a deep mine, that it does not figure in British Coal plans and is only a distant possibility. Deep mines are expensive and environmentally contentious. The mine would certainly not bring work to local people. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for coal matters confirms these points, as does the Minister responsible for Energy, who says that there is no likelihood of a tidal power barrage on the Solway Firth or of any harnessing of wind power in that area. In short, the energy supplies for that area can come only from Chapelcross.

Mr. Alexander Ladle: The hon. Gentleman talked about Canonbie. Will he try to get the facts about it right? It is probably the largest unproved coalfield in Scotland—it is not only a mine. It stretches from Lesmahagow to Cumbria.

Sir Hector Monro: I took the trouble to get the chairman of British Coal to give me the facts. He assured me that it was a deep mine which is not in British Coal's present plans. There is no likelihood this century of any development whatever there.
Of course, Opposition Members tend to forget the social aspects of decommissioning nuclear power stations with 650 workers in an area of high unemployment. That would be catastrophic to the community, and the local authority would lose £600,000 in rates. Has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State been able to give any thought—with his colleagues in the Department of Energy—to the possibility of the dry buffer store that has been raised by the CEGB, and to whether or not that might be built at Chapelcross, or Heysham, or at any other site in the United Kingdom.
Two major decisions are needed: is the store needed at all—one has to hear in mind its high capital cost—and on what site would it be built? Thereafter, one would have to have intense discussions with the local authority about planning, and with the community about its acceptability. Can the Secretary of State give me any indication of when those decisions will be made?
I am pleased that British Nuclear Fuels has appointed a director of the reactor division to work with the superintendents on developments at the Magnox reactor stations. If my right hon. Friend has any information about future developments, it would be welcome.
Finally, will my right hon. Friend respond to the point about nuclear waste in Scotland, because the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and other Opposition Members have been trying to cause difficulties by saying that we shall reopen the burial of nuclear waste at Mulwarchar, in Galloway, and in the Scottish islands and elsewhere? I do not believe for one moment that any of that is true, and it is wrong to raise concern where none exists. If my right hon. Friend could say a little about the future of waste disposal possibilities in Scotland. that would be welcomed in Scotland.
I am glad that the Government have supported the nuclear industry in the way that they have, and have insisted on the highest standards of safety in the environment. I am sure that the motion to approve Sizewell B and the general policy for nuclear power is the right one.

Mr. Jack Thompson: I wish to make four declarations of interest: I am a sponsored millers' MP; I am a sponsor of the Druridge association, which is campaigning against the building of a nuclear power station in that area; and, more importantly, I am a human being; and a British citizen. Those are all good reasons for opposing Sizewell B.
It is appropriate that the debate is taking place on the day on which the general election has been announced, because it highlights the issue of the development of nuclear power in this country. In my constituency the issue will be in the forefront of the campaign for the next four weeks, alongside unemployment, education and social benefits—and it has been so for the last eight or nine years.
Although the Government have made up their minds about building the first PWR in Britain in Sizewell, today's debate is an exercise in trying once again to convince public opinion that the economics and the environmental and safety aspects of nuclear power generation, and especially the introduction of PWR, are wholly beneficial to the nation and will not require a Government health warning on the side of the packet saying that this form of energy is dangerous and can damage one's health.
The Government have said nothing in this or previous debates to convince millions of people in the country that all is sweetness and light. The Government say that, standing next to Sizewell A, which is a Magnox station, Sizewell B will become profitable with regard to capital and revenue costs. It is of course an ugly feature on the Sizewell coastline, but the people in that area can rest in their beds satisfied that they will not suffer in any way from accidents at a nuclear power station.
To be economically viable Sizewell B will be a gamble. Since the inquiry ended, the odds have shortened considerably. Volatile oil prices affect the fuel economy of the world and prices now are well below those quoted during the inquiry. There has been a complete change in the coal industry, internationally and in Britain. There has been a major breakthrough with the introduction of new equipment to British mines, and output levels, as the Secretary of State constantly reminds us, are breaking records almost weekly. New technology in coal burning and pollution control has altered the prospects for PWR development in the past two years. It is now possible to make a more positive prediction about future coal-burning generation. Sir Frank Layfield has said that the figures quoted by the CEGB in the inquiry were much too high, confused, insufficient and skilfully uncertain. The British Coal forecast, made during its presentation at the inquiry, suggested that world coal prices would be about $75 a tonne. It has now changed its forecast to suggest that coal prices in the year 2000 will now be $40 a tonne. That affects the thinking on Sizewell.
The CEGB now admits that the capital costs have increased between £60 million and £100 million and further increases are anticipated. None of the board's nuclear stations has yet operated as cheaply as coal


stations. Capital costs for Sizewell have increased dramatically and they are forecast to increase further before it is built. The huge costs of decommissioning have not yet been identified and the recent announcement of the abandoning of the four sites for depositing low-level nuclear waste because of political and public pressure, or a combination of the two, shows the insurmountable problems that are facing all forms of nuclear waste disposal. The other sites that were identified were for low-level waste, and the problems and the public outcry accompanying high-level nuclear waste will be even greater.
The effect upon the environment is another issue that has become increasingly predominant in the minds of individuals. I had the opportunity to visit the Sizewell A station at about the time of the proposal or announcement to build the B station. That was when the PWR design was introduced.
I recall my first sight of the A station. I was a stranger in the area and I saw it as such. I saw the station from the National Trust car park—I noted this at the time, and I still have it on record—at Dunwich common. That is close to the Minsmere nature reserve, which is two miles north of the power station. The coastal area between the common and the station is open and the main buildings are conspicuous. There is only a low sand dune formation along the beach. Although attempts have been made superficially to screen the site, they have not been very effective. The military style security fence around the site is not an attractive feature.
The proposed B station would be built to the north of the existing station, and according to the CEGB's figures it would probably be longer and wider. It would certainly be higher than the existing building. It would create an even more significant blot on the landscape than the present station.
There will probably be changes in the nature of the sea as such changes have already been identified in other areas where there are huge power stations. A tremendous amount of water has to be taken from the sea, which passes through the station for cooling purposes. It is then returned to the sea at a somewhat higher temperature. There are coal-fired power stations at the north and south ends of my constituency and it seems that changes in the life of the sea have been substantial, although there has been less of a change in the temperature of the water.
There are major doubts about safety. When the Sizewell inquiry was opened, serious doubts were expressed about the safety of nuclear power throughout the world, and especially in countries such as Sweden. The figures quoted by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) suggest that 50 per cent. of Sweden's electricity is still generated by nuclear power, but different figures were given to me while I was in Sweden. Public alarm in Holland, West Germany and the United States has triggered off a serious examination of potential disasters as a result of nuclear accidents. Design faults and human error have been blamed, and it has been claimed that these problems can be overcome. Arguments have been presented for and against future development, and the Sizewell inquiry completed its work before the Chernobyl accident took place. When the world learned of that incident, design fault and human error were again attributed.
The CEGB defended its case for Sizewell by saying that the Chernobyl disaster could not happen in Britain. Before I came to this place I spent much of my life as an engineer. I have the greatest respect for engineers throughout the world, especially in Britain, but no engineer is infallible. Every one of us is susceptible to human error. I made my mistakes in my time and others will make theirs. That will apply whether the engineer is on a ship, in a nuclear power station, in a mine or anywhere else. There are those who claim that we are more expert than anyone else in the world in designing power stations and that our operators are better than anyone else in the world, but I do not think that a British engineer would ever make those claims.
Other European countries have shown more sense than we have, along with the CEGB. Sweden is increasingly determined to reduce its commitment to nuclear power stations and Austria has dismantled its one unused station. Italy, Holland and Spain are mothballing their stations. As the Secretary of State has said, West Germany is trying to push ahead with a nuclear programme, but one that is being opposed strongly by state Parliaments. Denmark, Greece, Portugal, Luxembourg and Ireland have no nuclear plans, and in the United States nuclear station orders have been cancelled.
It is evident that the Government's policy on nuclear power development is a political response to the miners. It seems that they are unaware that the real power lies with the electrical generating industry. The one group of workers that is far more powerful than the miners or those in the oil and gas industries comprises those who are employed in the power industry. Is it suggested by the Government that power industry employees will never take industrial action, will not have strikes and will not engage in any industrial disputes? Are they saying that they will not close down power stations? That will be the position only if the workers in the power industry are the elitist blue-collar workers, and it seems that that might be the Government's objective. Perhaps there will be this elitist group of workers, for we know that the workers in the power industry could close down our power stations almost immediately. They could bring the country to a standstill overnight, if not within 10 minutes.
It might seem that my comments about a rural part of Suffolk are not relevant to my constituency. However, I have a deep interest in energy matters and the Sizewell proposals are reflected in the board's proposal to build a nuclear power station in the constituency which adjoins mine, which is represented by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is in his place. The proposed station would be close to my constituency, and that is an important interest. The Sizewell proposals are the proposals for the power station at Druridge bay, and I know that the attitude of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed to the proposed station is similar to mine. He and I will continue the battle with almost everyone else in the north-east to ensure that a power station is not built at that site. There are positive counter-proposals that have the almost total support of the people in the region. A coal-fired station could be built on the existing site in Blyth at a place called Cambois, or the existing stations could be refurbished. If the Government wish to give the hon. Gentleman and myself something with which to win our seats, they should bear in mind that they have already given us the Sizewell inquiry.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: If the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) does not want a power station to be in the north-east, I can assure him that there are many employed in the nuclear industry in the north-west who would be delighted to have it. As I have the great honour to be a constituent of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and as we are both north-west Members, 1 think that it would be right for me to draw to the attention of the House the great importance to the north-west of the nuclear industry. Within 20 miles of the centre of my constituency about 10,000 people are employed by British Nuclear Fuels plc. The National Nuclear Corporation has its headquarters in my constituency. As a result of the Government's decision to license the new station at Sizewell, several hundred new jobs have come to Knutsford already.
As we enter the election campaign, the general election having been announced today, the Conservative party is the only party that is clearly in favour of an advance in nuclear power. It is in favour of expanding our nuclear power programme. In spite of tergiversations of the various sectors of the alliance and the attempt of candidates in constituencies where nuclear votes are to be won to deny what their parties actually stand for, it is only the Conservative party that promises an expansion of jobs in the nuclear industry, with all the cost-cutting in energy prices that that promises for the rest of British industry.
The Labour party's policy is clear and it has been outlined by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). It proposes that no new stations should be built, and it proposes also not to fuel the Heysham and Torness stations when they are finished. In short, it proposes to eradicate the nuclear power industry in Britain. The only Opposition Members who take a different view are the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), and for obvious reasons.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said about the so-called policy of the alliance. He said that the alliance was united on this issue. That is interesting when one considers that the Liberal party has a long history of opposition to nuclear power. In 1979 the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), the leader of the Liberal party, said that we must
halt the dangerous and unbelievably costly expansion of the nuclear industry.
That was a policy platform endorsed at the Liberal party assembly last September when the Liberals voted to halt the commissioning of future nuclear installations and to commence a planned phasing out of all nuclear power. There was nothing there about safety review or any ifs and buts. However, in 1981, in Warrington, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said:
The SDP supports an on-going nuclear power programme as being necessary for the future of the country.
I do not know whether that ringing declaration in favour of nuclear power had anything to do with the fact that British Nuclear Fuels employs several thousand people in Warrington and that, at that time, there was a by-election in Warrington in which the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) was the SDP candidate. It would be base of me to suggest that the alliance was attempting to play any such crude, electoral calculating advantage.
It is clear that the SDP would like to be able to support the nuclear programme—presumably that is why none of its representatives has been here for the entire debate. However, the sandal wearers, nut cutlet eaters and beardy weirdies who inhabit the Liberal assembly will not accept such an idea. Therefore, the alliance has had to cobble together a curious compromise whereby, subject to a safety review, the SDP says it would commit itself to building new nuclear power stations. The Liberal party is prepared to go along with that for the time being because, by so doing, it will be able to gull the electorate into believing that no decisions have been taken. Therefore, the Liberals can say what they like in any constituency to suit that constituency.
If there is a genuine doubt about the safety of nuclear power stations, they should be shut down, if only on a temporary basis. One could never justify the country running the type of risks that have arisen as a result of the Chernobyl disaster. If such a disaster is thought conceivable in Britain, I do not understand why we should wait for the results of a safety review before taking the necessary steps to prevent it. It would not have to be thought likely but merely conceivable that such an accident could occur. The fact that the alliance policy hinges on such a safety review demonstrates, as dramatically as possible, that the alliance is trying to pull a cynical electoral trick to seek some temporary advantage in the coming election.
The truth of the matter is that, if we are alive to the future energy problems not only of the country but of the world, and if we wish to capitalise on what will, undoubtedly, be the way forward for future energy production we must develop the nuclear industry and take advantage of the expertise that will be developed. The 21st century will be the century in which the finite known energy reserves of fossil fuels will run out, whether they are oil, gas or coal. That is inescapable. We will be faced with the problem of what to do when fossil fuels run out. If energy demands continue to expand at their present rate, we will certainly face that problem within the next 100 years.
The Government are committed to alternative energy supplies. They have poured millions of pounds into the study and will continue to do so. However, such projects will produce only a partial solution to the problem. Such projects will supply only part of the increased demand for energy. Certainly they will do nothing towards replacing the existing 20 per cent. of energy needs that is supplied by the nuclear industry.

Mr. Michael Stern: If we were foolish enough to go ahead with the much-vaunted Severn barrage, given the doubts about the project, it would produce the equivalent of less than one year's electricity, given the current increase in demand. That underlines my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. If there was a Mersey barrage or a Dee barrage as well as a Severn barrage, it would produce only the equivalent of 5 per cent. of the increased demand for energy that will arise between now and the end of the century. At best such projects represent minor elements in our calculations.
A vast market for nuclear services is developing abroad. If 25 per cent. of the world's electricity is nuclear generated by the year 2050, the market for fuel services will amount


to £25 billion per annum. There will also be capital investment of £20 billion per annum. Britain is in the forefront of the nuclear industry and, on the assumption that, under Conservative Governments, we will continue to maintain our lead, we will be in a perfect portion to take advantage of the opportunities.
I welcome the support the Government have given to the nuclear industry and the lease of life that has been given to the industry by the licensing of the new Sizewell reactor. I reiterate that it is the Conservative party alone that will continue the advancement of nuclear power upon which the future prosperity of the country depends.

Mr. Michael McGuire: On two previous occasions I said that it was probably the last time I would address the House. Today I am on surer ground and I believe that this will be the last time that I will address the House. This is Custer's last stand and everybody knows what happened to Custer.
I am delighted to take part in this debate because we can appreciate the political messages coming across. The lads behind me, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and his hon. Friends, will get some flak. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) will also receive such treatment. When my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) gives the Opposition reply to this debate he will give his usual ebullient speech, which will convince everyone except the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). He is a dyed-in-the-wool nuclear reactor man. He believes that everyone should have one in their house and, if he could provide them, he would do just that.
In a previous debate on this matter I described the people who advocate nuclear power by using the analogy of a card game when one man tries to kid his opponents. Today I will give the analogy of the man trying to sell gold bricks on Waterloo bridge. He says to a chap, "You can have this gold brick. It is the biggest bargain of your lifetime and you can have it for £100." The fellow shows some doubt, so the man says, "As it's you, you can have two for £100."
There have been four ages in the nuclear debate. The first was the age of innocent expectations and that occurred between 1946 to 1966. I remind the House that one of my late colleagues, Fred Lee, when he was Minister of Power in 1964, swallowed the argument, like all those before him, that nuclear power would be so cheap and so profitable that it would not be sensible to monitor it nor meter it. He believed that people should get it for nothing. We know that that idea soon went.
The second age was the age of doubt, and that lasted from 1967 to 1974. We have had two further ages. The first of those was the age of anguish that occurred between 1975 and 1980. The nuclear advocates were saved by the tremendous increase in oil prices and coal prices and they were able to capitalise on those increases.
We are now coming to the last stage—the age of justification, from 1981 to the present. Why do we have such concern? Why is there disaffection? Why are people worried? They are worried because there have been sufficient signs to justify worrying about nuclear power. Chernobyl happened one month after the Layfield committee finished taking evidence. It is staggering that there is no mention of Chernobyl in the report. We must

not allow Government supporters or anybody else to get carried away. When he had heard all the arguments, Layfield said that the Sizewell station justified itself provided it could be built to time and cost. That has not happened. The Magnox programme overran by several years and about £900 million. It has not been proven. We cannot say that, given what happened, it can be justified. It has not been justified.
We know that, many years ago, Sir Arthur Hawkins, a previous chairman of the CEGB, was PWR-mad when he appeared before Select Committees. He wanted to build 15 of them. We must remember that Sizewell B is a prototype. The Government have said that they will build replicas. People say that Chernobyl was different. What about Three Mile Island? That is a PWR station and is still contaminated. The principle is not sound. Some people say that we shall be the poor man of Europe, that we are isolated, and that we shall choose energy sources that will impoverish people. That is a lot of bunkum. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Scotland is present. He intervened earlier and tried to get a Scottish point of view across. I shall refer later to the difference between the SSEB and the CEGB. It is important.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) mentioned Sweden. He said that the Swedes are super-keen on environmental matters and that 50 per cent. of their energy is nuclear. The hon. Gentleman should bring himself up to date. They are committed to phasing it out. The hon. Member for Tatton, with all his wisdom, told us that gas, coal and so on are finite and that supplies will finish fairly soon. There was a newspaper report that an English scientist, of all people, who has always had a theory about how gas and oil were created, did not go along with the dead fish concept. He believes that there is something deeper. We cannot believe everything that we read in the papers. If we did, we would believe that the Tories are a lot further in front of us than they are—[Interruption.] The House considered the matter in 1970. Government Members should not count their chickens before they are hatched. The public can be fickle. Thank God for fickleness; they might swap over.
The scientist whom I mentioned said that oil supplies would satisfy world requirements far into the distant future. Oil is a fossil fuel. The hon. Member for Tatton said that such resources are finite. The English professor has done some deep drilling in Sweden and has come up with what looks like a winner.
We have an international picture. Grave doubt has been expressed. No new stations are being ordered in America, the land from which we get nuclear technology. They are completing one or two that are too far advanced to stop. but they will not build any more. Every country with any sense is learning the lessons of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. They have said that the next time could be worse. We should learn that lesson, too.
The South of Scotland Electricity Board put forward a strong case. It said that an AGR programme is better, that it would be better to sustain it, and that the cost saving would be several hundred million pounds. The SSEB believes that the system is proven and that the CEGB would be better going down that road. It opposes the PWR system. I have referred several times to Chernobyl and have said that it staggered me that it was not mentioned in the Layfield report. Chernobyl has changed people's views on the matter. Before Chernobyl, The Economist stated:


Nuciear power is as safe as a chocolate factory.
After Chernobyl, it stated:
Chernobyl has convinced many people, and not just what we describe as greens, that nuclear power is too dangerous at any price.
The European Commissioner for Energy said:
It is very difficult to plan long term after Chernobyl.
I have described the change in the European scene. The Danes have asked the Swedes to close down a nuclear plant 12 miles across the Baltic from their territories. The Italians have pledged a period of careful reflection following Chernobyl. France is held up to us as the country that we should try to copy and it is said that we should try to get our energy production from nuclear sources up to that of France. France is in an economic shambles and its debt-ridden economy resembles that of a Third world country. It has debts of over £20 billion. That is why France wants to flog power stations to anybody who will take them. The French Government, unlike us, have a system where they can ride roughshod over public opinion. In France, public opinion would not delay a similar discussion for this length of time. In France the Government get their way. If we want a Third world economy we should go down the French road, as we will finish up with £20 billion of debt, quite apart from whether the station is safe or not.
The economics of the argument have not been made out by any measuring stick. There are disagreements between sectors of the electricity supply industry. The SSEB argument cannot be discounted as some sort of small-time rivalry. It is a very serious argument.
I began by saying that this may be the last time on which I address the House. I can say with some conviction that that is a certainty. All through the four ages that I outlined we have been sold a pup. The case for nuclear power has not been made out economically or safely. The PWRs at Three Mile Island and at Chernobyl cannot be laughed off as not being quite as good as ours. The Government should listen to the voices that are saying, "Re-examine the arguments". I mentioned before the arguments about coal. As soon as the report I mentioned previously was written it was almost out of date because of forecasted coal prices. The bedrock of the argument is that Sizewell could only be justified if it was built on time and to cost. No nuclear power station in this country has yet achieved that. They have all overrun, sometimes grotesquely. The cost has been enormous. The hon. Member for Gordon mentioned alternative sources and energy conservation. When about £10 million is given to energy conservation as opposed to about £256 million for research into nuclear power one should not expect credible comparisons. One will be emphasised more than the other and it is not fair play. The savings are enormous and I believe that people would be gratified, willing to listen, and delighted to hear the Government say that they will have another look at Sizewell.

Dr. Michael Clark: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire). I am sorry that that was his last speech in the House. I am sure that he is leaving just when he has reached his own age of justification and that he will be replaced in due course by someone from his constituency in his age of innocent expectation. We bid him farewell if that was his last speech.
Tonight I should like to speak about the views that people have about nuclear energy and nuclear generated electricity. Not much thought is given to electricity generation in general. People do not wish to understand how turbines or generators work as long as they work and electricity goes into their households. As soon as the electricity is generated from a nuclear source, many people take an interest and quite a few appear to become experts. I wonder why nuclear power has that effect on people. Perhaps it is because nuclear power is rightly conceived as complex and is little understood by laymen. Those who understand it may well think that it is wrong and risky to change the nature of the atom. The fact that the nature of the atom is being changed all the time on the sun, which gives us our energy through nuclear fusion, is generally ignored. It may be that nuclear power has a special place in people's minds because of the nature of the risk and the difficulty in defining that risk.
To a greater or lesser extent, everyone accepts risks in crossing the road, working with machinery or flying off on holiday, but in nearly every case the risk can be quantified in terms of possible damage and the extent of the damage. Nuclear risk is not perceived in that way, and is generally thought not to be quantifiable. That is not so. We can quantify nuclear risks and in doing so we should also quantify the risk of not having nuclear power and what effect that would have on the economy and the life of this country.
Human casualties caused by nuclear accidents like the recent one at Chernobyl arouse great emotion, probably because in people's minds there is a link between nuclear power, nuclear warfare and nuclear bombs. The enrichment of the fuel in a bomb and in a nuclear power station is brought about in wholly different ways and there is a complete difference in basic engineering. Those facts are not generally understood or acknowledged. When Chernobyl went up just over a year ago, a bomb was created. First, there was a steam explosion and thereafter an explosion caused by the release of hydrogen. However, that was a conventional explosion and there was no mushroom cloud to prove otherwise.
We have to look at the extent of Government involvement in nuclear energy and wonder whether that is one reason why the population at large treat nuclear energy as something special. The high capital cost of nuclear installations, the special planning inquiries, the safety scrutiny and the disposal of radioactive waste mean that Governments have to take an interest in nuclear matters. Some people say that, because the fuel could be diverted to military programmes or hijacked by terrorists, it is essential that Governments take an interest.
Unfortunately, the more interest a Government take in nuclear power, the more special it appears to become, and that interest is perceived by many as a sign of control and even as a sign of preference. Governments then tend to play down their nuclear power programmes and begin to show a reticence about propagating the virtues of nuclear power. The exception is France, where a massive nuclear programme is proudly and openly proclaimed and generally accepted by the public. On the one hand, Government are seen to be protecting nuclear power. As all Governments are almost, by definition, of the Establishment, and as anti-nuclear groups seem to get linked with Left-wing organisations, nuclear power has,


unfortunately, become a political issue. I say "unfortunately" because I should prefer to see nuclear power viewed not as a political issue, but as an educational issue and an environmental challenge.
By their very training, scientists are taught to reveal the truth and have a high reputation. However, from time to time it seems that nuclear scientists have lost that reputation and are mistrusted by the public at large. One must ask why that is so. Is it because those scientists are not educating the public sufficiently well in nuclear matters, or is it because nuclear scientists are getting too closely involved with politicians and the politicians are tainting the scientists, thus giving rise to a lack of trust?
Nuclear matters are matters of national pride, rather like state airlines. To have a nuclear power station or a nuclear programme is a status symbol of maturity and wealth. Even Governments in developing countries have nuclear research programmes and nuclear generating programmes. Some even carry out work on designing and modifying reactors. The more developed countries compete with each other to introduce refinements to their nuclear reactors so that they can sell them at home and abroad. Nuclear engineering then becomes just another international business operated by a whole series of multinational companies. Many people see the multinationalism of nuclear power as more important than international safety. I have some sympathy with that view.
We all know that, as has already been said, the Chernobyl design was thought to be faulty by Western experts many years ago. Why did not those experts shout louder and longer if they thought that Chernobyl was unsafe? Had they done so, it is perhaps unlikely that the RBMK-type reactor would have been decommissioned by the Russians, but it is highly likely that they would not have dared to carry out the experiments which led a year ago to that disastrous explosion.
Do the experts who kept quiet in years gone by have reservations about other nuclear power stations, in their own countries or abroad? If so, they should reveal those doubts, now. Should there be another incident like Chernobyl—God forbid—it will be no use their crying out after the incident "Yes, we knew that it was not safe; we would not have had one in this country." They must cry out now if they feel that any power station anywhere in the world is intrinsically unsafe. More international cooperation, particularly with regard to safety and the interchange of information, is perceived as necessary by individuals worrying about nuclear issues.
I also ask whether the nuclear industry in this country has portrayed a sufficient image of confidence in itself. We were confident up to 1956. That was the age of innocent expectation referred to by the hon. Member for Makerfield. We built a series of Magnox power stations. Then we entered an era of technical confusion, with steam-generating heavy water reactors, AGRs, and now the PWR proposed for Sizewell. Does the nuclear industry not realise that the more uniformity of view and consistency of approach it has within itself, the more it will project an image of self-confidence and the more that self-confidence will help people in the country at large to accept its decisions, and to accept more readily a power station at Sizewell?
Once again, France has got it right. It has a programme of power stations which has not gone in fits and starts. It

has stuck with one design. In France, nuclear power is no longer a technical novelty; it is merely a way of generating electricity to boil a kettle or light a room, and it is even a way of earning exchange from this country.
Before the accident at Chernobyl, the nuclear industry could proudly claim that it had nearly 4,000 reactor years of safe experience worldwide. That is no longer so. The accident that the "antis" feared has happened. The pro-nuclear people, realising that they could not prove a negative, argued using astronomical odds that an accident would never happen. Unfortunately, it did happen, and it is very difficult now for the pro-nuclear people to go back to arguing on probability.
There is no escaping the seriousness of the Chernobyl accident. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) mentioned deaths on the roads, and said that the number of such deaths between now and next week would be about 100, compared with the 30 people killed at Chernobyl. However, the accidents are not strictly comparable. The magnitude of the Chernobyl disaster cannot be compared with road accidents over a week in a Western country.
It is ironic that, as the risks of nuclear war appear to diminish, the public see the risks in civil nuclear power increasing. What can the Government and the nuclear industry do to reduce that worry? First, there should be a greater awareness of radiation in general. Do the public know the strength of background radiation—for instance, radiation from rocks in Cornwall or Aberdeen? Do they know that the radiation received by the average citizen in this country as a result of Chernobyl was no more than the radiation received by any of us during a chest X-ray?
Next, I wonder whether the modern scientists could get their units in order so that old scientists like me and, I hope, the general public can begin to learn something about radiation. There is no chance of them learning much about radiation with rads, rems, roentgens, sieverts, and becquerels that very few of us understand. Communication techniques need to be improved. At the time of the Chernobyl disaster I heard a National Radiological Protection Board spokesman constantly repeat that the accident was not the end of the world, but the more he said it the less reassuring he became.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did a splendid job in protecting the health of this nation by adhering to very strict and even over-cautious rules regarding food, including vegetables. It took away the practical fear of the population, but unfortunately all that the scientists continued to do was to talk about rems and rads and positive void coefficients. That did not help at all.
If there is to be less public anxiety about nuclear power stations, it is to be hoped that the communication machine of the nuclear industry will be overhauled and restructured so that in future there may be more prompt and professional utterances, should there be any incident, however minor. Above all, international co-operation is expected on the treatment and effects of radiation. The work of Dr. Gale, the American doctor who went to Moscow, and the Russian openness about the accident are seen as positive sides of this terrible disaster. The general public expect this togetherness, forged in adversity, to continue and will not understand a return to positions of national jealousy and mistrust.
The anti-nuclear lobby has been demanding for some years the closure of all nuclear power stations, maintaining


that an energy conservation policy and the use of renewable sources of energy for generation would allow demand and production to be equated. That is not so. Unfortunately, the view of the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) that we can generate all our electricity from renewable sources and supplement it by energy efficiency would not allow demand to be met. Some energy will probably come from renewable sources. I hope that it does, and I support it. However, only 7 per cent. by 2020 will come from renewables. As for hydrocarbons, even if the big hole in Sweden is right, hydrocarbons are finite and should be conserved as a valuable premium fuel for the chemical industry and aviation.
The challenge of providing energy for our grandchildren as hydrocarbon fuels run out is just as great as the challenge of protecting them from radiation. If we do not find an alternative source of energy, we shall have high energy prices that will mean that many of the old people whom we wish to protect will be unable to afford to keep themselves warm in winter and that the Third world will be unable to buy the fuel that it needs to power its industry at a time when energy is running short.
In conclusion, there is individual and collective concern about nuclear power, enhanced to a considerable extent by lack of understanding and lack of technical education. Naturally, the public turn to the easier options, ignorant of the arithmetic that would reveal the weakness of their choice. It is unlikely that the anti-nuclear energy lobby will cease its campaign against nuclear power, but it is to be hoped that the nuclear industry will respond to the need for uniformity, simplicity and figures in its public relations approach if it is to earn the measure of public acceptability that I believe it deserves.

Mr. Kevin Barron: The Secretary of State is to be congratulated on his honesty about the need for nuclear power when he opened the debate. He showed more honesty than has been evident in many previous debates. Having listened to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, we can have no doubt at all that the reason why the Government are determined to go ahead with Sizewell B has little to do with evidence about costs or safety and everything to do with weakening the position of the coal industry and its trade unions.
The right hon. Gentleman made great claims about the activities of our competitors, giving as examples the only two countries to have substantially expanded their nuclear industries in terms of orders over the past 10 years—France and Japan. However, it must be remembered that Japan, which has massively increased its activities in the nuclear industry, has been importing 90 per cent. of its energy for a very long time because it has none of its own and that 90 per cent. of the imported energy has been oil. Obviously, after the oil crisis in the 1970s Japan had to look for an alternative source of energy. In Britain, we have never needed to do that. We have hundreds of years' worth of coal, and the Secretary of State knows that quite well.
There is no doubt that the international price of fossil fuels calls into question the cost argument for going ahead with Sizewell B. No one can move away from that fact. Even those who advised Layfield in the first instance now say that because of the fall in the cost of fossil fuel there may be no justification on cost grounds. There is even less justification on safety grounds. Hon. Members have

mentioned Chernobyl, but we have not really discussed the outcome of that accident, even in this country. We have heard recently of an outlay in compensation to sheep farmers in north Wales and Cumbria of £4 million, with a further £1 million spent on monitoring the sheep. There are still thousands of sheep that cannot be moved from one part of the country to another or put on the market because of the Chernobyl accident. It is extremely likely that we do not yet have anything like a proper knowledge of the eventual costs.
The Secretary of State and others talked about jobs in the nuclear industry as affected by Labour party policy. Let me say to hon. Members and to the nuclear industry that there are generations of work in the nuclear industry—in the decommissioning of nuclear power stations when their useful life has ended, and in the disposal of nuclear waste. None of us suggests that we would cut employment in the nuclear industry to the levels that have been suggested today. The Labour party certainly does not want to take on the mantle of the present Government, who have put 3 million people into the dole queues since 1978–79. That is certainly not what we are about. We are here to protect and enhance employment rather than to get rid of it.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The Secretary of State is invariably robust when he has a bad case, and he made a very robust speech today. I think that he was uncertain not because of his future political prospects—although I gather that those are limited—but because he ignored three issues. First, he ignored the fact that the costs of the Government's nuclear waste policy have suddenly been transformed in recent weeks. He knows that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said, there is already an overrun on the PWR programme. Secondly, he ignored the requests of several Labour Members, made when we last debated PWRs. We pointed out that the House was considering documents relating to health near nuclear power stations, and that, in case after case, the authors of those documents had suggested that further research was needed. We asked the Government for an assurance that that medical research would be continued, and we still await a serious commitment from them on this very important matter.
Another aspect of the Secretary of State's speech that concerned me was that he told us how rapidly the whole world was moving towards a dependency upon nuclear energy. Yet the world lacks adequate capacity to deal with the waste that it is increasingly producing. The Secretary of State should have commented more fully on that aspect.
Since I wish to be brief, I shall conclude by saying that I agreed with one part of the speech of the Secretary of State, when he reminded the House that SDP Members were absent. They were absent throughout the last debate on PWR. They have been absent throughout this one. All three of the SDP's local election candidates were absent from the count last week in my constituency and so far the party has forgotten to appoint an SDP candidate in my constituency—perhaps it will not bother. If it does, it will be reminded of the irresponsibility of its absence, just as I remind the Secretary of State that a great deal of his speech was irresponsible. Perhaps the greatest irresponsibility was the fact that he overlooked referring to health, to cost and to the fact that, since the last Sizewell debate,


he has received submissions from senior scientists of professorial rank who have asked him to think again. It is time that he did.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: I hope that the House will forgive me if I comment on my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire), who told us that he was making his last speech in the House. As usual, it was a robust speech, and I am sure that he enjoyed it as much as the House.
The general climate surrounding this debate has been, to put it mildly, a bit unusual. Nevertheless, many hon. Members have been successful in getting their views on the record. Perhaps in a more sober time, and if we had had longer, there could have been more of the cut and thrust of debate on the issues.
I remember as a boy seeing the slogan, "Smoking factories, not smoking guns." It is doubtful that such a slogan would today capture the same imagination and receive endorsement in the light of the pressure that many groups exercise for a pollution-free environment. After the second world war, a body of public opinion was shocked at the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Arising from that, a progressive movement took root which adopted as its slogan "Atoms for Peace." I beg to suggest that that was the forerunner of what we know today as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. It was not a sloganising movement. As a movement, in general it took the view that scientific and technological study should be used for the benefit of mankind. Its members were not, therefore, Luddite in believing that the atom could not be harnessed for peaceful purposes and that never again should there be a repeat of the horror and consequences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Britain was the first country to develop thermal nuclear power and, between 1956 and 1971, it built 11 Magnox reactors as a first generation of nuclear power stations. 1956 was a significant date, for it was the year of the Suez crisis, our withdrawal from the middle east in ignominy, and the closure of the Suez canal. The advent of Britain into civil nuclear power was seen by many at that time as part of the answer to build up a self-reliant indigenous source to counter the uncertainties and instability of the middle east. But, looking back to that period, the consensus among practically all the main political parties and the approval of all the trade unions was remarkable. For years, the main thrust of criticism was that industry was too secretive and that its costs were open to serious question. Although there have been incidents at nuclear power stations, the secret nature of industry meant that there was little reportage to them, and they have only recently started to be more prominently catalogued.
The major event which laid the basis for the breaking of the consensus support of civil nuclear power was the partial meltdown of a civil nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island in the United States of America. It was an American-designed pressurised water reactor, which uses more enriched fuel than the AGR, which is the second-generation thermal nuclear power station that Britain has built. I shall deal with that later. American PWRs operate at a far higher temperature than advanced gas-cooled

reactors. In fact, they operate at double the pressure and at a far higher temperature than the RBMK reactor that gave rise to the Chernobyl disaster.
Since the Layfield inquiry was first launched, in a campaign the Central Electricity Generating Board has been promising orders all over the country and has coupled that with rubbishing other nuclear reactor types in Britain. It did that even before the decision was known. At this stage, I should point out that the South of Scotland Electricity Board was not in favour of a pressurised water reactor. The actions and decisions of the CEGB to build a Three Mile Island type of nuclear reactor have played a not insignificant part in increasing doubts and fears about civil nuclear power. I have described it in many speeches in this House as a bastard type of PWR that will be built in Britain. We have never built one before. We say that it will be different. However, experience of virgin reactors is of delays, difficulties and high costs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield has described.
Today—several billlion dollars later—we are receiving reports about attempts to clean up the Three Mile Island reactor. Apparently, life has been found within the site. However, I suspect that in part that owes something to the discovery that was made in the 18th century by Dr. Louis Pasteur, of pasteurisation fame, of what he described as "spontaneous generation". Whatever else the Chernobyl accident may have done, it has illustrated the fact that civil nuclear power is too unforgiving. Whatever the advance of technology, the margin for human error can be present in a fail-safe system. Irrespective of the designs of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, that aspect has been identified.
We must examine nuclear power and its problems. For much of the time since the initial development of nuclear power as a source of energy, it was assumed that it would provide limitless energy cheaply, cleanly and safely. However, those assumptions have proved untenable. In many cases, they have been disproved by the realities of the cost of construction, the technical difficulties of production, the increasing problems of the disposal of waste, and the security of materials.
Chernobyl realised grave doubts about the safety of nuclear power stations. Against that background, it is reasonable to ask whether there are other satisfactory means of meeting our energy requirements. In Britain, we can identify reserves of coal for 300 years; they could even last for 1,000 years. We also have oil and gas resources. An energy conservation policy would extend the life of our fossil fuels. It would raise the standards of insulation and the quality of housing and help to sustain employment.
Although our present reserves of fossil fuels are finite, there are enough of them to give us valuable time to get on with the task of developing alternative means of power, heat and light such as the renewable energy sources, of solar, wind, tidal and geothermal power. Last year in the House I led in a debate on alternative energy sources, and I identified the fact that the total Government budget for research and development in 1984–85 was a paltry £15 million compared with a parallel budget for nuclear power of £154 million.

Mr. Peter Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that £15 million in one year from this Government is better than £7 million in five years from the Labour Government?

Mr. Eadie: I concede that immediately, but revenues from North sea oil under the Labour Government totalled £800 million, whereas this Government have received £53·4 billion. The amount spent on alternative energy sources has been a disgrace.
Two dangers must concern all of us. The first is the risk of a major accident at a nuclear power station. Chernobyl has given us a chilling account of what a serious nuclear accident can involve. Some 50,000 people had to be evacuated from a 19-mile zone around Chernobyl and radiation was so intense that it was lethal in two hours. Many square miles of Soviet earth are now poisoned by radioactive isotopes which will pose a threat to human life for decades ahead. Last autumn I visited Norway with the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and we learnt that the reindeer herds in the north had to be slaughtered because of the radiation.
The second danger involves the disposal of nuclear waste which is an unavoidable byproduct of the nuclear industry. Yet the serious problems of its disposal and the dangers of pollution have yet to be dealt with satisfactorily by any country.
Other countries have responded to Chernobyl. In Yugoslavia plans have been cancelled for a second reactor; orders in Belgium and the Netherlands have been postponed; Italy's new reactor project has been brought to a halt by the local council; Austria is dismantling an unused reactor; Finland has suspended a decision to build another reactor; in Sweden, where nuclear power generates about 50 per. cent. of its energy requirement, it is planned to phase out nuclear power in under 25 years; and in the United States, although nuclear power is planned to increase by 40 per cent. in the next few years, it will come from reactors whose construction began 15 years ago. There have been no new orders since 1978 and there are no plans for the foreseeable future. Therefore, there should be no more civil nuclear power stations built in this country and a start should be made on phasing them out.
In Britain we have 11 first generation Magnox stations, 10 of which have been operating for 20 years. It was intended that a safety review should be carried out before they continued beyond that age. Our second generation stations include five AGRs and a further two are under construction.
The PWR is discredited on cost. The capital cost of Sizewell B has already increased more than 30 per cent. above its original estimate. To judge from the United States experience of building PWR stations, the present estimate of £1·5 billion will undergo considerable slippage before Sizewell B is built.
The CEGB provided the Energy Select Committee with information showing that the decommissioning costs for each Magnox station would be £270 million. Individual Magnox stations cost £500 million to construct at today's prices. However, no full-size commercial station has yet been decommissioned anywhere in the world.
Decommissioning costs are likely to be even more than 54 per cent. of capital costs. The Government always mention France when the costs of nuclear power are discussed, but they always ignore the fact that the capital indebtedness of electricity to France is some £20 billion, which is not taken into consideration in pricing. The French argue that they have no alternative to nuclear

power because they have no gas or oil and only small reserves. We do not accept that. Britain by contrast has huge reserves of all three and is a net exporter of energy.
There is no need for nuclear energy, especially when renewable energy such as one-way solar and geothermal heat is taken into account. Therefore, the safety element is discredited. It is a too unforgiving technology, and that is why I say to my hon. Friends that we should phase it out and that they should support our amendment.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has followed his predecessors in seeking to draw some relevance from the fact that the United States has not ordered any new nuclear power stations since 1978. He might like to reflect on the fact that it is also true that the United States has not ordered any new coal-fired power stations since 1978. Therefore, it may be reasonable to conclude that, because of its massive nuclear programme, the United States has met the capacity of its requirements.
I should like to pay tribute to the speeches that have been made, particularly the constructive and thoughtful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clarke) and the supportive speeches of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) inquired about the future of Chapelcross. I pay tribute to the work that is done in that nuclear power station and I say to my hon. Friend that there is a long-term review occurring with regard to the Magnox stations, including Chapelcross. The consequences of that review will he taken into account in determining their future. But the safety of Chapelcross and other stations can be considered to be reliable at the present time, which is in part due to the high standards of work of the employees at that station.
The issue in the debate is not one between those who are passionate supporters of nuclear power and those who wish to remove it completely, because the Government's postion is quite simple. We want a balanced energy programme; not one that is dominated by nuclear power but one that relies on a spectrum of sources of fuel and of means of generating electricity. The Labour party and the other Opposition parties are committed to what can properly be described as an extremist position because they wish to phase out all nuclear power. The line-up of those on either side of the debate shows that on one side, completely against nuclear power, is the Leader of the Opposition, and on the other side is his colleague the shadow environment spokesman, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). On one side of the equation against nuclear power is the Labour party. On the other side is not only the Conservative party, but the Scottish TUC. The hon. Member for Midlothian should have referred to that fact. One finds on one side of the debate at least one half of the so-called alliance and on the other side the other half of it.
I was interested by the wording of the Opposition's amendment for the debate because in a short few lines it encapsulates at least three fundamental errors and misconceptions. First, it suggests that within this country nuclear power,
has not in practice provided the country with …
a


cheap and safe electricity supply".
We have not had any evidence to suggest that electricity has not been supplied safely in this country. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) repeated his statement that he believed that the British nuclear industry was probably the safest in the world, thereby going against the assertions in the amendment. If we are concerned about safety records, for many years the coal industry, as the hon. Member for Midlothian will be the first to admit, sadly and tragically, has suffered fatalities and injuries of a kind that the nuclear industry has not experienced.
The amendment also suggests that a non-nuclear energy policy would allow greater use of British technology than would the Government's approach. To refute that argument, I do not ask the House merely to listen to the views of the Government. In a document published only last month the Scottish TUC referred to its belief that there would be an energy gap and a need for nuclear power in the future and stated:
A shutdown of the British nuclear industry now would almost certainly mean total reliance on imported technology in the future—technology in the development of whose safety standards we would have little say.
When the Conservative Government and the Scottish TUC agree, which does not happen often, the Opposition should appreciate the force of the argument.

Mr. McGuire: The right hon. and learned Gentleman sought to give the impression that the dangers of coal mining were comparable with the dangers of nuclear power. The most dangerous industry in this country is agriculture. Does the Secretary of State want to close that industry down? A few years ago in what was then my constituency there was a tragic explosion in a coal mine, but it did not spill over and contaminate half of the western world. Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman draw such stupid analogies?

Mr. Rifkind: The Opposition amendment states that the safety record of the nuclear industry in this country is not one in which we should have confidence. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny what his right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East is the first to admit—that this country's record is the best of any in the world.
If we are really interested in the prospects for the British economy, the employment implications of our energy policy must be a fundamental consideration. The Opposition amendment seeks to suggest that employment prospects would somehow be advanced if reliance on nuclear power were phased out, but there is no evidence to substantiate that claim. At least 100,000 jobs depend directly or indirectly on the nuclear industry and fully 44,000 of those are in the various nuclear organisations. Moreover, in a number of communities around the country reliance on the nuclear industry is of enormous importance. Dounreay, for instance, is not just the third largest employer in Caithness—[Interruption.] I imagine that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is not here because he is trying to persuade his constituents how much he supports the nuclear industry.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The Secretary of State has a bit of a neck talking about jobs associated with energy and about Scottish communities

depending on those jobs when he knows how many people relied on the coal industry before the Government deliberately destroyed their jobs.
The Secretary of State has merely skated around the safety question. Why was the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board, whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself appointed, so critical of the safety record of PWRs and how can the Government be satisfied with a mere three kilometre evacuation zone around nuclear installations in Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should be the first to be cautious about intervening in this debate. We shall long remember how, when he first sought election to the House, he professed himself to be a great supporter of Torness and only when he thought himself safely elected to the House did he suddenly support Labour party policy. A period of silence from the hon. Gentleman would be well advised.
The implications of the Opposition policy concern not only the jobs that would be directly or indirectly lost as a result of phasing out nuclear power stations—there is also the effect on electricity tariffs that such a policy would produce; because the SSEB estimates that to abandon support for the nuclear power industry would mean an increase in such tariffs in Scotland of between 20 and 30 per cent. We know that the Finnish pulp mill that is to be established in Irvine with about 1,000 jobs and a major investment would have had no opportunity of being won for Scotland if the policy of the right hon. Member for Salford, East had been adopted.

Mr. Orme: Why is the South of Scotland Electricity Board opposed to the PWR and in favour of the AGR? Where does the right hon. and learned Gentleman stand on that?

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman should appreciate that I regularly meet Mr. Miller, the chairman of the SSEB. He has emphasised to me, and has said publicly, that he is satisfied with the safety record of either system but, naturally, as he had had AGRs at Torness and Hunterston, the evidence that he gave to the inquiry pointed out the particular advantages of the AGR system.
I do not want to leave out the alliance. We know that on 14 September 1986 the SDP conference voted for an expansion of the nuclear power programme. We know that 11 days later the Liberal assembly voted to abandon the nuclear programme. We know that, on matters of principle, it is a fundamental characteristic of the new alliance that it is different from other parties. It does not like to conceal matters from the public; it likes to apply a holier than thou attitude to these important issues. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), the leader of the SDP, had anticipated the possibility of a difference of view because he had commented some time earlier that, with regard to nuclear power,
we cannot have an uneasy fudge".
He was quite right: we did not end up with an uneasy fudge—we ended up with the easiest fudge imaginable. Faced with a choice between expanding nuclear power—which the SDP wanted—or abandoning it—as the Liberal party wanted—this great alliance of principle decided to abandon both policies and ended up with a little bit of both. It decided to end up with a policy that said, "We will not get rid of existing power stations, nor build any new ones." That, we are told to believe, is an example of new


integrity in public life on the part of a party that puts principle before expediency and seeks to impress the public.
This holier than thou attitude is not peculiar to the modern Liberal party. One recalls how, 100 years ago, Labouchere said of Gladstone:
I don't object to Gladstone always having the ace of trumps up his sleeve, merely to his belief that the Almighty put it there".
The British public faces a clear choice. Does it want an energy policy that is balanced with regard to sources of supply for generation of the power that this country needs? Does it accept the views, not only of the Government, but of the Scottish Trades Union Congress which said:
There is a serious danger that in the not too distant future Britain and the rest of the world could encounter an energy gap without the maintenance of a significant contribution from nuclear power. This is a real problem".
We recognise that that is a real problem and that the Third and developing worlds need nuclear power if they are to have any chance of meeting the requirements for energy that so many in the industrialised world take for granted. We realise that there are literally tens of thousands of jobs in this country and the rest of the world that are dependent on nuclear power either for direct employment, or because the increased electricity costs that would otherwise obtain would be devastating to their economies. The Opposition, having committed themselves to phasing out nuclear power, know that that is a policy that is fundamentally against the interests of the Labour movement, as expressed by the Scottish TUC, and the interests of the energy industry as a whole. It is for that reason that I have no hesitation in asking the House to reject the irresponsible amendment of the Opposition and to give thumping approval to the Government's motion.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 340.

Division No. 160]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Clelland, David Gordon


Anderson, Donald
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)


Ashdown, Paddy
Cohen, Harry


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Coleman, Donald


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Conlan, Bernard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Mrs Rosemary
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Craigen, J. M.


Beith, A. J.
Crowther, Stan


Bell, Stuart
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Bidwell, Sydney
Deakins, Eric


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dewar, Donald


Boyes, Roland
Dixon, Donald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dobson, Frank


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Dormand, Jack


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dubs, Alfred


Brown, N, (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Bruce, Malcolm
Eadie, Alex


Buchan, Norman
Eastham, Ken


Caborn, Richard
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Faulds, Andrew


Canavan, Dennis
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fisher, Mark


Cartwright, John
Flannery, Martin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Thomas
Foster, Derek





Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
O'Neill, Martin


Freud, Clement
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


George, Bruce
Parry, Robert


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Patchett, Terry


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pike, Peter


Gould, Bryan
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Prescott, John


Hancock, Michael
Radice, Giles


Hardy, Peter
Randall, Stuart


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Raynsford, Nick


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Redmond, Martin


Haynes, Frank
Richardson, Ms Jo


Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Robertson, George


Home Robertson, John
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)
Rogers, Allan


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Rooker, J. W.


Howells, Geraint
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Hoyle, Douglas
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rowlands, Ted

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hume, John
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Johnston, Sir Russell
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Kennedy, Charles
Skinner, Dennis


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Lamond, James
Snape, Peter


Leadbitter, Ted
Soley, Clive


Leighton, Ronald
Spearing, Nigel


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Stott, Roger


Litherland, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Taylor, Matthew


Loyden, Edward
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McGuire, Michael
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


McKelvey, William
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Tinn, James


McTaggart, Robert
Wainwright, R.


McWilliam, John
Wallace, James


Madden, Max
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Marek, Dr John
Wareing, Robert


Martin, Michael
Welsh, Michael


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wigley, Dafydd


Maynard, Miss Joan
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Meacher, Michael
Wilson, Gordon


Meadowcroft, Michael
Winnick, David


Michie, William
Woodall, Alec


Mikardo, Ian
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce



Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Allen Adams.


Nellist, David





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bendall, Vivian


Aitken, Jonathan
Benyon, William


Alexander, Richard
Bevan, David Gilroy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Amess, David
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Ancram, Michael
Blackburn, John


Arnold, Tom
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Ashby, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
Bottomley, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baldry, Tony
Bright, Graham


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brinton, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)






Browne, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bruinvels, Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hannam, John


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Budgen, Nick
Harris, David


Bulmer, Esmond
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Butcher, John
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Butterfill, John
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Hayes, J.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hayward, Robert


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cash, William
Heddle, John


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Henderson, Barry


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hickmet, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Churchill, W. S.
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hirst, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Holt, Richard


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hordern, Sir Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Michael


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Coombs, Simon
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cope, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Corrie, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Couchman, James
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Crouch, David
Hunter, Andrew


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dickens, Geoffrey
Irving, Charles


Dicks, Terry
Jackson, Robert


Dorrell, Stephen
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dunn, Robert
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Durant, Tony
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Dykes, Hugh
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Eggar, Tim
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Emery, Sir Peter
Key, Robert


Evennett, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
King, Rt Hon Tom


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Fallon, Michael
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Favell, Anthony
Knowles, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Knox, David


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fletcher, Sir Alexander
Lang, Ian


Fookes, Miss Janet
Latham, Michael


Forth, Eric
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lawrence, Ivan


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Franks, Cecil
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fry, Peter
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Gale, Roger
Lester, Jim


Galley, Roy
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lightbown, David


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Lilley, Peter


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Lord, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Lyell, Nicholas


Gorst, John
McCrindle, Robert


Gow, Ian
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Gower, Sir Raymond
Macfarlane, Neil


Grant, Sir Anthony
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Gregory, Conal
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Maclean, David John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Ground, Patrick
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Grylls, Michael
McQuarrie, Albert


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Madel, David


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Major, John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Malins, Humfrey





Malone, Gerald
Sayeed, Jonathan


Maples, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Marland, Paul
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Marlow, Antony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Mather, Sir Carol
Shersby, Michael


Maude, Hon Francis
Silvester, Fred


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sims, Roger


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mellor, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Merchant, Piers
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Speed, Keith


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Squire, Robin


Miscampbell, Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor


Moate, Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Monro, Sir Hector
Stern, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stokes, John


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Sumberg, David


Mudd, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Neale, Gerrard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nelson, Anthony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Newton, Tony
Terlezki, Stefan


Nicholls, Patrick
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Norris, Steven
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Ottaway, Richard
Thornton, Malcolm


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Thurnham, Peter


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Tracey, Richard


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)
Trippier, David


Pattie, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Trotter, Neville


Pawsey, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Viggers, Peter


Pollock, Alexander
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Portillo, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Powell, William (Corby)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Powley, John
Walden, George


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Price, Sir David
Wall, Sir Patrick


Prior, Rt Hon James
Waller, Gary


Proctor, K. Harvey
Walters, Dennis


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Ward, John


Raffan, Keith
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Rathbone, Tim
Watts, John


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Renton, Tim
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Rhodes James, Robert
Wheeler, John


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitfield, John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Raymond


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wiggin, Jerry


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Winterton, Nicholas


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wolfson, Mark


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wood, Timothy


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Woodcock, Michael


Rowe, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Rumbold, Mrs Angela



Ryder, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy



St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 340, Noes 181.

Division No. 161]
[10.15 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Dykes, Hugh


Aitken, Jonathan
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Alexander, Richard
Eggar, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Emery, Sir Peter


Amess, David
Evennett, David


Ancram, Michael
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Arnold, Tom
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Ashby, David
Fallon, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Favell, Anthony


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fletcher, Sir Alexander


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forth, Eric


Baldry, Tony
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Batiste, Spencer
Franks, Cecil


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bendall, Vivian
Fry, Peter


Benyon, William
Gale, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
Galley, Roy


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Blackburn, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bottomley, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gorst, John


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Gourlay, Harry


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gow, Ian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gower, Sir Raymond


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grant, Sir Anthony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gregory, Conal


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Brinton, Tim
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Ground, Patrick


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Grylls, Michael


Browne, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Bruinvels, Peter
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hampson, Dr Keith


Budgen, Nick
Hanley, Jeremy


Bulmer, Esmond
Hannam, John


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Butcher, John
Harris, David


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Haselhurst, Alan


Butterfill, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hawksley, Warren


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, J.


Cash, William
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hayward, Robert


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chapman, Sydney
Heddle, John


Chope, Christopher
Henderson, Barry


Churchill, W. S.
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hickmet, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hind, Kenneth


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hirst, Michael


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Colvin, Michael
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Conway, Derek
Holt, Richard


Coombs, Simon
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cope, John
Howard, Michael


Corrie, John
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cranborne, Viscount
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Critchley, Julian
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Crouch, David
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Dickens, Geoffrey
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dicks, Terry
Hunter, Andrew


Dorrell, Stephen
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Irving, Charles


Dunn, Robert
Jackson, Robert


Durant, Tony
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick





Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Key, Robert
Pollock, Alexander


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Portillo, Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom
Powell, William (Corby)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Powley, John


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Knowles, Michael
Price, Sir David


Knox, David
Prior, Rt Hon James


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lang, Ian
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Latham, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Lawler, Geoffrey
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Lawrence, Ivan
Rathbone, Tim


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Renton, Tim


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rhodes James, Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lester, Jim
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lightbown, David
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lilley, Peter
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lord, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lyell, Nicholas
Rossi, Sir Hugh


McCrindle, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Macfarlane, Neil
Ryder, Richard


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Maclean, David John
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Sayeed, Jonathan


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


McQuarrie, Albert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Madel, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Major, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Malins, Humfrey
Shersby, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Silvester, Fred


Maples, John
Sims, Roger


Marland, Paul
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Marlow, Antony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mather, Sir Carol
Speed, Keith


Maude, Hon Francis
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Squire, Robin


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mellor, David
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Merchant, Piers
Stern, Michael


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Miscampbell, Norman
Stokes, John


Moate, Roger
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Monro, Sir Hector
Sumberg, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moore, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John (Solihull)


 Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moynihan, Hon C.
Terlezki, Stefan


Mudd, David
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Murphy, Christopher
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Neubert, Michael
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Newton, Tony
Thornton, Malcolm


Nicholls, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Norris, Steven
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Onslow, Cranley
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tracey, Richard


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Trippier, David


Ottaway, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
van Straubenzee, Sir W


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Viggers, Peter






Waddington, Rt Hon David
Whitfield, John


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Raymond


Waldegrave, Hon William
Wiggin, Jerry


Walden, George
Wilkinson, John


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Wall, Sir Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas


Waller, Gary
Wolfson, Mark


Walters, Dennis
Wood, Timothy


Ward, John
Woodcock, Michael


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Yeo, Tim


Warren, Kenneth



Watts, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)



Wheeler, John





NOES


Alton, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Ashdown, Paddy
Deakins, Eric


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dewar, Donald


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dixon, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dobson, Frank


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dormand, Jack


Barnes, Mrs Rosemary
Dubs, Alfred


Barron, Kevin
Duffy, A. E. P.


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Eadie, Alex


Beith, A. J.
Eastham, Ken


Bell, Stuart
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Faulds, Andrew


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fisher, Mark


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Flannery, Martin


Boyes, Roland
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Derek


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Freud, Clement


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
George, Bruce


Bruce, Malcolm
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Buchan, Norman
Golding, Mrs Llin


Caborn, Richard
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hancock, Michael


Canavan, Dennis
Hardy, Peter


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cartwright, John
Haynes, Frank


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Heffer, Eric S.


Clarke, Thomas
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Clelland, David Gordon
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Home Robertson, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)


Cohen, Harry
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Coleman, Donald
Howells, Geraint


Conlan, Bernard
Hoyle, Douglas


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Craigen, J. M.
Hume, John


Crowther, Stan
Johnston, Sir Russell





Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Kennedy, Charles
Robertson, George


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Kirkwood, Archy
Rogers, Allan


Lamond, James
Rooker, J. W.


Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Leighton, Ronald
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Sedgemore, Brian


Litherland, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Loyden, Edward
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McGuire, Michael
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McKelvey, William
Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Skinner, Dennis


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


McTaggart, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


McWilliam, John
Snape, Peter


Madden, Max
Soley, Clive


Marek, Dr John
Spearing, Nigel


Martin, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stott, Roger


Maynard, Miss Joan
Strang, Gavin


Meacher, Michael
Taylor, Matthew


Meadowcroft, Michael
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Michie, William
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Mikardo, Ian
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Tinn, James


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wainwright, R.


Nellist, David
Wallace, James


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


O'Neill, Martin
Wareing, Robert


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Welsh, Michael


Parry, Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Pike, Peter
Wilson, Gordon


Powell, Rt Hon J. E.
Winnick, David


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Woodall, Alec


Prescott, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Radice, Giles



Randall, Stuart
Tellers for the Noes:


Raynsford, Nick
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Allen Adams.


Redmond, Martin



Richardson, Ms Jo

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House, recognising the advantages to the country of having a diversity of energy supply, including coal, gas, oil and nuclear power, welcomes the Secretary of State for Energy's decision to give consent to the construction of the Sizewell B PWR and thus recognises the important contribution that nuclear energy is making and will continue to make to the provision of cheap and efficient electricity and the strength of the British economy; also recognises that the industry is a major source of employment; and deplores the policies of the Opposition parties that would sacrifice that employment.

Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): I beg to move,
That the draft Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.
The draft order, with a few exceptions, contains provisions analogous to those enacted in Great Britain in the Employment Act 1982. The purpose of that Act on introduction was twofold: first, to safeguard the liberty of the individual from the abuse of industrial power; secondly, to improve the operation of the labour market by providing a more balanced framework of industrial relations law. The Act was a further, and successful, step by Government to restore the balance between the rights and obligations of unions, management and the community, and it is that success that has informed our proposal to apply similar provisions in Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland has its own separate legislative and administrative framework of industrial relations, but in general it has followed closely Great Britain law in this transferred area. At present, Northern Ireland is two steps behind Great Britain in respect of industrial relations legislation—that is, the Employment Act 1982 and the Trade Union Act 1984. The order will help to redress the situation, and reflects the Government's view that there should be parity in industrial relations provision between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, unless there are exceptional local considerations that would justify a different approach. Such parity is particularly important when we are dealing with the basic rights and responsibilities of individuals, employers and trade unions, as in the present legislation.
In considering the application of the 1982 Act, we naturally judged it essential fully to consult interested parties, including trade unions and employers' organisations. Detailed consultations took place on the basis that the Government would want to follow the provisions of the Employment Act 1982, except where there was a compelling case for a different course, in the circumstances obtaining in Northern Ireland.
Despite the views of the trade union movement in Northern Ireland against replication of the 1982 Act, I have to say that the Government do not consider that a substantive and persuasive case for a different course of action in Northern Ireland has been made.
The order contains 25 articles. The key provisions address aspects of the closed shop and trade union immunities. In relation to the closed shop, the order will extend the protection the law provides for those who work in closed shops by requiring validation of the closed shop through a ballot if dismissal for non-union membership is to be regarded as fair and by providing enhanced compensation for closed shop dismissals found to be unfair. The anomaly whereby trade unions enjoy a far wider immunity than their individual officials will also be brought to an end.
I now propose to go through the order in a little more detail. Articles 1 and 2 are self-explanatory and deal with the title, commencement and interpretation of terms used in the order. Article 3 concerns employee involvement and requires directors' reports of companies employing an

average of 250 employees in any financial year to contain a statement describing what action has been taken during the year to introduce, maintain or develop arrangements aimed at furthering employee involvement. This article is not designed to compel companies to take steps towards greater employee involvement, but companies affected will have to report what steps, if any, have been taken. It is expected that this will involve only some 230 companies in Northern Ireland, due to the high proportion of smaller firms in that economy, but it is nevertheless a wholly desirable provision.
Turning now to the closed shop, the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 provided additional grounds on which dismissal for nonmembership of a trade union was to be regarded as unfair, namely, where the employee objected to trade union membership on grounds of conscience or other deeply held personal conviction and where the employee was an existing non-member of the union when the union membership agreement took effect.
Article 4 of and schedule 1 to this order provide for compensation to be claimed by those employees dismissed from their employment, due to non-membership of a trade union in a closed shop on or after 1 October 1976, when the 1976 closed shop provisions came into force in Northern Ireland, and before 4 May 1982, when the 1982 amendments came into force, and who would have been eligible for compensation under the 1982 order, had it been in force at that time. This parity provision brings Northern Ireland into line with an existing ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, and while we are not aware of any likely Northern Ireland claimants it is clearly important and proper that the European Court ruling is given legislative effect in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Articles 5 to 12 give new rights to individuals working in a closed shop to protect them from unfair dismissal, or action short of dismissal, due to their refusal to join a union and provide increased levels of compensation for employees unfairly dismissed in certain circumstances. Articles 5 and 11 build on changes introduced by the 1982 order by providing additional circumstances in which dismissal, or action short of dismissal, for nonmembership of a trade union become unfair. The most important of these circumstances makes dismissal unfair where a closed shop agreement has not in the preceding five years been approved by the requisite majority in a secret ballot. Those who advocate the closed shop, or who wish to safeguard their interests through such an arrangement, should be willing to submit it to periodic scrutiny and the test of employee opinion.
The new framework of compensation for unfair dismissals arising either from a closed shop or from trade union membership or activities is set out in articles 6 and 7. It consists of a minimum basic award of £2,200 and a new special award of twice the annual salary, subject to a minimum of £11,000 and a maximum of £22,000 if the applicant asks for reinstatement but the tribunal does not order it, or three times the annual salary, subject to a minimum of £16,500 but no maximum if the employer refuses to comply with an order to reinstate. It is intended that at the time the order comes into operation these limits will be increased by subordinate legislation to £2,300, £11,500, £23,000 and £17,250 respectively, to maintain parity with those operating in Great Britain since 1 April this year. These awards are additional to the


compensatory award, whose current maximum is £8,500, which is now in force for the generality of unfair dismissals. In the event that reduction of the total award is contemplated, by virtue of the employee's conduct before dismissal, article 8 provides that no account may be taken of a breach by the employee of any requirement in contract that he must be either a member or a non-member of a union.
Articles 9 and 12 provide that, in proceedings before an industrial tribunal in which compensation is claimed for unfair dismissal, or action short of dismissal, as a result of trade union pressure, the claimant may request joinder of that union as a third party to the proceedings brought against the employer. At the moment, such joinder is available only to an employer. Any award of compensation may be wholly against the employer or the union or it may be apportioned between the employer and the union. These provisions require in effect that unions, like employers, should be prepared to stand over actions for which they are responsible.
A closed shop is normally the result of negotiations between an employer and one or more trade unions representing his employees. But it is important to ensure that closed shops are not brought in by back door pressure through union labour only requirements in contracts.
Articles 13 and 14, therefore, provide that any terms or conditions in contracts for the supply of goods or services requiring contractors to operate a closed shop or to recognise, negotiate or consult with a trade union are void. Further, it will be a breach of statutory duty if such a contract is withheld or terminated on those grounds and any persons adversely affected can sue for damages. These provisions would be ineffective if trade unions were free to accomplish the same result by industrial action. Article 15, therefore, removes immunity from trade unions that put pressure on an employer to contravene articles 13 and 14.
The next part of the order, covered by articles 16 to 19, deals with trade union immunities and provides for trade unions to have the same immunity as individual trade union officials and other organisers of industrial action. This is significant in that, since 1906, trade unions in Northern Ireland, like their British counterparts prior to 1982, have enjoyed total immunity from civil actions in tort even if they have acted unlawfully. Most reasonable opinion would regard this as an anomaly which requires correction. Articles 16 and 17 therefore introduce a measure of change which still leaves trade unions with a significant degree of protection. Article 16 confers sufficient legal personality on trade unions and unincorporated employers' associations for them to sue and be sued in their own name, while article 17 abolishes the special and wider immunities for trade unions granted by section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906 and brings them into line with those granted to other persons.
Broadly speaking, unions will be liable for unlawful acts, such as blacking or secondary picketing, that are authorised or endorsed by a "responsible person", for example, the principal executive committee, president, general secretary and so on or by the national executive or national officials. Article 18 sets upper limits on the damages which may be awarded against a trade union in any single set of proceedings, while article 19 protects certain trade union property from awards of damages,

costs or expenses. These protected funds include union provident funds and political funds which are not used to finance industrial action.
A further main change made by the order is the tightening up of the definition of trade dispute. For a dispute to be lawful under the terms of article 20, it must be between workers and their employer and wholly or mainly about matters such as pay, conditions or jobs.
Articles 22 and 23 make minor changes to the method of computation of a period of continuous employment by providing that the calculation will, in future, be based on calendar years and months rather than, as at present, on years of 52 weeks. The 52-week year was an artificial creation which caused all sorts of administrative difficulties in ascertaining length of service. A special service calendar has to be published each year and, even so, employers often get it wrong. The change to a calendar year will simplify matters for all concerned.
Article 24 makes statutory provision for schemes designed to assist unemployed persons improve their employment prospects either through temporary employment, self-employment or voluntary work. These include schemes such as action for community employment, enterprise allowance, and community volunteering—all of which are particularly important in Northern Ireland—which are already in operation in the Province but are funded on an extra-statutory basis.
Some will say that the legislation is irrelevant to the real industrial relations needs of Northern Ireland; and individual trade unions may take exception to certain detailed provisions in the order.

Mr. John Hume: What puzzles me about the bringing forward of this order, is that the Minister's own Department, together with the Industrial Development Board, in promoting industrial investment in Northern Ireland—I support them in doing that—hold up as a major attraction for investment in Northern Ireland the high quality of industrial relations there and the low level of strikes. That being so, why does the Minister wish to interfere with that?

Mr. Viggers: In talking about inward investment and the promotion of the prospects of companies in Northern Ireland, it would be wrong if I let that opportunity pass without saying that I am grateful for and aware of the efforts that the hon. Gentleman has made to promote investment in his constituency, and in the whole of Northern Ireland. His efforts have been most strenuous and helpful.
On the Minister's significant point about the good industrial relations in Northern Ireland, yes we boast with justification of the good industrial relations record there. However, that does not mean that the provisions proposed by this order to rectify the balance between individual workers and trade unions should not be extended to Northern Ireland so that individual workers there have the background of the industrial framework that workers in Great Britain have enjoyed for some years.
Apart from the fact that the order rectifies the balance between employer, union and individual union member, which is extremely important, another extremely significant point is that many in Northern Ireland—the Government certainly take this view—would regard it as most unfortunate if there should be a growing divergence between industrial relations law there and that in Great


Britain. As I pointed out earlier, industrial relations legislation in Northern Ireland is currently two steps behind that in Great Britain. If we did not pass this order, that growing divergence would concern many people who feel it important that the legislation should be the same. Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that industrial relations in Northern Ireland are better, that does not destroy my point.
As I have said, when dealing with the economic problems of Northern Ireland it is essential that all who are seeking to do business there should be reassured that Northern Ireland is not diverging from the broad progress and developments that are taking place in industrial relations legislation in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am convinced that economic development and regeneration are more likely in a climate of industrial stability and where there are legislative safeguards against the abuse of industrial power. Further, the protection of individual rights is an important matter in its own right. There is a balance to be struck between the protection of individual liberty and legitimate and reasonable use of collective power.
Half the articles in the order deal with the closed shop. It is against the traditions of personal liberty in this country to be required to join a union in order to obtain or hold a job, and our first consideration in questions about the closed shop must be the freedom and rights of the individual. The order also corrects the anomaly whereby trade unions have enjoyed a virtually total immunity from actions in tort, an immunity wider than that enjoyed by any other person or organisation in this country. This means that people who previously would not have been able to bring civil proceedings to secure redress against unlawful behaviour will now be able to do so. This is a reaffirmation of an individual's right to seek justice and to be compensated for harm suffered. Protection of these rights is just as important in Northern Ireland as it is in Great Britain.

Mr. Peter Archer: As I listened to the Minister introduce the order, I must confess that I found myself feeling sorry for him. He tried to convey some sense of enthusiasm for what he was doing, but, if I may say so, and it is no reflection on his powers of advocacy, he sounded like a reluctant messenger. He depressed me too.
At the end of the debate last Wednesday, it was clear that the political leaders in Northern Ireland were not prepared to change a word of the speeches that they have been making from the beginning of time. No one was willing to make a minor concession, let alone to share a new vision, and we knew that direct rule, with all its shortcomings, would be with us for the foreseeable future. I reflected that, deep as are the differences between us, the Government might now be as anxious as we are to improve the procedures of this House as they apply to Northern Ireland. Indeed, I assume that hon. Members from the alliance parties might have agreed with me, had they taken the trouble to attend this debate.
Now, as this Parliament breathes its last, and at the end of the day's main business, the Government have introduced what they must know is one of the most controversial Northern Ireland measures this Session. We did not expect them to agree with all our arguments, but we expected them to recognise that the order raises issues in which deep emotions are involved, and that each issue

merits a separate debate. They knew that there were legitimate views to be expressed on many of the provisions of the order and that suggestions to that effect had been made through the usual channels. Yet, they have introduced the measure by way of an unamendable order, debatable for an hour and a half late at night with no previous opportunity for the House to express an opinion. It is direct rule at its worst. The Government have demonstrated a contempt for the rights of the Opposition. a contempt of the House and a contempt of working people in Northern Ireland. But history has a way of passing judgment on the arrogant and one day it may be the Conservatives who appeal to the traditions of the constitution and plead the rights of minorities.
Why was it essential to introduce these provisions with such ungracious haste? What was the nature of the emergency which required the Government to disregard such principles of decency as they have not already abandoned? The Minister gave us two reasons. First, he said that we must achieve uniformity between the law of Great Britain and the law of Northern Ireland. Clearly, that is a matter to be taken into consideration and there have been occasions when we have wished that the Government had been more mindful of it. We have urged it on the Government during debates on the emergency provisions legislation, in the context of civil rights and in relation to the Payments for Debt Act.
Let us shed the hyprocrisy. The Government profess a concern for uniformity whenever it suits their book. If it happens not to coincide with the argument that they wish to advance, they do not spare it a second thought.
For many years the law on industrial relations has rarely been the same in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain. The law on the matters which form the subject of this order was introduced into Great Britain in 1982, so the law in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain has been different for five years with no adverse consequences. Why does the principle of uniformity suddenly become of such overriding importance that it is necessary to turn direct rule into a mockery?
Perhaps we may find a clue in the second reason that the Minister gave. He told us that it was all to do with protecting the rights of individuals. If there was a spark of merit in that argument I would be with him shoulder to shoulder. I have spent my political life crusading for the rights of individuals. We have just spent a whole Standing Committee debating the rights of individuals. But what has happened in industrial relations in Northern Ireland which has suddenly endangered the rights of individuals? Or what has been happening since 1982 which has now resulted in this sudden need to protect them? The answer, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has just pointed out, is nothing.
Whatever other tragic quarrels have existed in Northern Ireland, industrial relations have been exemplary. The rest of the world has wished its industrial relations could be like those in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, they have been a great selling point for the Government when they have sought to attract capital investment into Northern Ireland.
The Province offers industry an industrial relations record equal to that of West Germany and Japan, and the most productive and efficient workforce in Europe, with the highest academic standards.
That is not just my judgment or that of the hon. Member for Foyle. It is a direct quotation from the former Minister


of State, Northern Ireland Office, the right hon. Member for Bosworth (Sir A. Butler) as reported by The Irish Times of 16 March 1984. Does the Minister suggest that anything has taken place since then which would invite us to review that judgment?
Industrial relations in Northern Ireland have been improving, as the hon. Member for Foyle pointed out. In 1982 the number of working days that were lost in Northern Ireland through industrial disputes per 1,000 employees was 195, compared with 249 in Great Britain. By 1986 the figure had fallen to 71 per 1,000.
When this order was ventilated, the former Minister of State was invited by the trade unions to specify any of the abuses at which these proposals were directed. He made no response to that invitation, except to say that it was directed to, "avoiding potential abuses".
If ever there was a solution in search of a problem it is this order. But the case against it is not merely that it serves no purpose; it is that it is positively pernicious. It will no longer be possible to say to the rest of the world, potential customers and potential investors, that industrial relations in Northern Ireland are free of problems because that would invoke the question, "Then what was all the fuss about?" It is not only that we shall not be able to say that there are no industrial relations problems, it may well not be true that there are no such problems because the order invites a reaction from the trade union movement. It will create industrial discord because it will bring to an end the consensus that has obtained until now. It will be seen and properly seen as a deliberate confrontation because that is exactly what it is. Even worse, it will frustrate the strategy that the trade union movement has successfully pursued of avoiding involvement in sectarian quarrels. The trade unions have provided a forum where those from differing traditions and with incompatible views could meet to discuss how to pursue their common objectives. They have bridged the sectarian divide with the Government's full approval. In that respect also they have earned tribute from Ministers in this Government. Speaking in the Belfast city hall on 29 February the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), expressed this judgment:
The standard of the trade unions in Northern Ireland against bigotry, intolerance and violence, has won the widespread admiration and sympathy of all political parties in Great Britain. I would not like this opportunity to pass without paying my own personal tribute to the work of many brave and dedicated men and women in the Trade Union Movement in maintaining a civilising influence in this community throughout the last 15 years. What you have contributed here in Northern Ireland presents one of the most valuable of the many contributions which your Movement has made to our social and industrial history.
The Belfast Newsletter in an editorial on the previous day added this endorsement:
Without exception, trade unions in Northern Ireland have consistently done a superb job in directing people's minds in the correct way to live rather than the wrong way to die.
The Government are proposing to end that position. Do they think that it will be possible to avoid sectarian overtones if at every workplace where there is a membership agreement there must be a ballot? Have they no imagination? How can trade union officials conduct a ballot without raising debates about their stand in relation to demonstrations against the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

How could there be a ballot without specific groups making it a condition of support that they will lend their voice to some sectarian campaign or other? The ballots will have more to do with who goes on marches, what flag flies over the workshop and what emblems appear on the shop floor than with recognition agreements.
As the hon. Member for Foyle reminded us, it is not only the closed shop provisions that set a direct course for disaster. The Employment Act 1982, the parent of today's untimely offspring, sought to put back the clock—as the Minister admitted, or even boasted—to the Taff Vale case and to remove immunities which in the United Kingdom were equivalent to the positive rights that trade unions enjoy elsewhere in the world and which we thought were no longer in the area of political dispute. Not only is that a direct challenge to three quarters of a century of industrial history, it may well raise the issue of sequestration of funds.
Uniformity or no, the situation in Northern Ireland is not similar to that in the rest of the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, the trade unions with headquarters in Belfast, in London and in Dublin have lived side by side. If the Government encourage the union-bashers to play for sequestration, the important difference between funds situated within the jurisdiction of the British courts and those deposited in the Republic will become vital. If minds are directed to the issue, because the Government insist on stirring these things up, some may see advantage in belonging to a union based in the Republic rather than in the United Kingdom. Or the converse may happen, and industrial disputes in one part of Ireland may spread to the other.
Do the Government take the Labour Relations Agency seriously? The danger that I have described has not been dreamed up by the unions or the Labour Front Bench. The Labour Relations Agency in its annual report for 1985–86 expresses concern on this very point. Or do the Government, with their neurotic obsessions, believe that the Labour Relations Agency, too, has been infiltrated by Communists?
I make just one point about the drafting of the order. As the Minister has said, in many ways it follows the 1982 Act, although one might have expected the Government by now to have learned something from experience on this side of the water. This legislation has not only to be argued in the Court of Appeal but be applied by people at the sharp end on the shop floor, by union officials and by managers. Those who drafted the order had at their disposal the most perfect instrument ever devised for communication—the language of Chaucer and Shakespeare, of Keats and of Shelley—but the following is what they produced. Paragraph (8) of the new article 22A states:
In any case where neither paragraph (4) nor paragraph (7) has the effect of displacing paragraph (3) and the employee
—it then sets out three things that employees might do—
paragraph (3) shall not apply if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for his refusal was, in a case falling within sub-paragraph (c)(i), that his taking the action in question would be in breach of the code or, in a case falling within sub-paragraph (c)(ii), that if he became, or as the case may be remained, a member he would be required to take part in a strike, or other industrial action, which would be in breach of that code.
That is just what I have always said!
We thus have an order which purports to deal with a problem that never existed and which will gratuitously


create problems that need never have arisen. It makes no contribution to solving the real industrial problems in Northern Ireland by providing jobs for people there. It is a recipe for discord, foisted on the House without any opportunity to discuss its abrasive details, merely to gratify the dogmatic obsession of the Prime Minister and the chairman of the Conservative party with union-bashing.
We are debating a draft order, but the Government have removed the "r" from the word "draft". We can only hope that before its damaging effects have run their course we shall he in a position to bring sanity and concord to the industrial processes in Northern Ireland. Tonight we can at least vote against it.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister, in moving the order, enunciated a principle with which it is difficult to disagree, despite the efforts of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer): that parity of the law between all parts of the United Kingdom is in principle desirable unless a strong case to the contrary is shown; and that one of the areas in which the desirability of parity is self-evident is the law that governs employment and the rights of employees and trade unions. To argue that there are some parts of the kingdom in which the mischiefs against which legislation is aimed are less prevalent than in others is surely not an argument in favour of legislation that is patchily applied to different parts of the kingdom. The validity of whatever the legislation is applies equally, irrespective of the prevalence or otherwise of the mischiefs that the legislation attempts to prevent.

Mr. Archer: I unreservedly accord the right hon. Gentleman at least the accolade of being consistent in his advocacy of uniformity, which cannot be said of the Government. Does he believe that the need for this indecent haste, which has meant that we are not in a position to debate the details of the order, made uniformity desirable today?

Mr. Powell: I am coming immediately to the question of indecent haste, which seems to me a strange objection to raise against the order.
I was about to say that one of the characteristics of parity is simultaneity. It is impossible to say that all parts of the United Kingdom enjoy the same law if the same law is only applied to them at different times. This law has applied to the rest of the United Kingdom for five years, during which time it has not applied in Northern Ireland. Whatever may be the objections or otherwise to correcting that state of affairs exactly at this moment, I do not think that five years of disparity in this respect between Northern Irelartd and the rest of the United Kingdom, if it is to be removed, is being removed with indecent haste. But true parity, which involves simultaneity, can be obtained only in one way—and that is a way that has much else to commend it. It cannot be satisfactorily attained by passing legislation for Great Britain in this House and then, at some interval of time, by making an Order in Council under direct rule that applies to Northern Ireland.
There is only one genuine way in which parity of law can he created between all parts of the United Kingdom, and that is that that law is made at the same time, in the

same way and in the same place by the representatives of all parts of the kingdom. I quite agree—and if this is implicit in the argument of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West I shall grant it to him—that if the law made in 1982 for the rest of the United Kingdom is to apply to Northern Ireland, it should have been applied by the representatives of Northern Ireland taking part in the 1982 passage and debating of the legislation which applied to the whole of the United Kingdom.
It is only by United Kingdom legislation that we can ensure genuine parity of law between all parts of the Kingdom, and it is only in that way that the opinions and the possible variation in the impact of law in different parts of the United Kingdom can be brought to light by the well tried processes of debate in this House—debate which is responsible debate, because that which is being debated will apply to the constituents of hon. Members who take part in it.
In the death throes of this Parliament I shall refrain from entering upon the sordid reasons why for so long—indeed, strictly speaking, since 1920 the people inhabiting Northern Ireland have been denied the right to participate in the formation of the laws of the United Kingdom in this House of Commons. I shall say only that that denial is illustrated in a particular crass manner by the draft Order in Council.
I do not know whether the eyes of any hon. Members studying the order strayed to the schedule. Schedule 4 repeals the Trade Disputes Act 1906:
Extent of Repeal … The whole Act, so far as unrepealed.
So a United Kingdom statute of 1906 which, when it was made, applied to Northern Ireland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom is apparently to be repealed as far as Northern Ireland is concerned by a schedule to an Order in Council. It is an abomination that we should have to proceed in this way. We do so simply because, quite artificially, and for reasons which have nothing whatever to do with the well-being of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, the legislative process for Northern Ireland has deliberately been kept separate from that practised in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The time will come when there is a House of Commons which will no longer inflict that injustice on that part of the United Kingdom. There will come a time when the House of Commons, making law for the United Kingdom, will insist on making it for the whole of the United Kingdom at the same time. That time will come: it may come in the next Parliament, it may come later, but it will come. Meanwhile, we have no excuse for denying to Northern Ireland the application of law that was passed in 1982.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: No hon. Member holds more admiration than me for the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), but he talks as though the rest of the United Kingdom is deliberately trying to keep the Northern Ireland part of our United Kingdom separate. Surely that is not true. In spite of the brilliance of the right hon. Gentleman's mind, it is nonsense to suggest that the rest of the United Kingdom has oppressed Northern Ireland and kept it separate from the rest of us.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman misheard me. I accused successive Governments of the United


Kingdom, for reasons which were not perhaps very apparent at the time, of having imposed this differentiation. If the hon. Gentleman cares to study the 1920 Act and the 1973 Act for the government of Northern Ireland, he will find that the House passed legislation which enforced on part of the United Kingdom a separate legislative procedure from that which the rest enjoys.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I accept all that, but whether it is a 1920 Act or a 1973 Act, the problem is that the rest of the United Kingdom wants the problems of Northern Ireland to be solved as pacifically as possible. I have a feeling that, in 1990 and 2000, the House will be talking about the same problem. Whether it be the problems arising out of what Cromwell did in Northern Ireland or the problem of Carson, or anything else, surely the rest of us have a right to ask, "For how long does this have to go on?"
It is no use saying it is the Roman Catholics, the Church of Ireland or the Church of England—people die, whether they be a Lord Justice or a member of the public caught in the crossfire when there was some great victory over terrorism. We have a right to ask for how long it will go on.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It will go on as long as the United Kingdom insists on treating Northern Ireland differently from the rest with the perceived and intended object of eventually separating it.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) must relate his remarks to the order. I have been lenient with him during his preamble.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: We have arrived at the nub of it—the order is part of it—when the right hon. Member for South Down asks, in effect, "Where are we getting to, and do we want Northern Ireland to be part of the rest of the United Kingdom?" The answer is that we do. However, I do not think that the rest of the United Kingdom is prepared for the united Northern Ireland part of the kingdom to rest day after day, week after week and month after month with the idea that one part of the United Kingdom can act as a tyranny against the rest of the United Kingdom when in the end there has to be a salvation of a problem of part of our United Kingdom. The inference that those of us who say that there is a way out of the impasse want to sell out one part of the United Kingdom to another is entirely false and entirely unfair.
As I have said, I have the greatest admiration for the right hon. Member for South Down, but for him to say that those of us who talk about solving the problem wish to sell out a part of the United Kingdom is a travesty of the truth. The other part of the United Kingdom is saying that it is fed up with and tired of pouring in its treasury in money and people only for its people to be put to the sword, with one part of the United Kingdom saying that there can never be any other good but the United Kingdom being torn apart by this small part of our United Kingdom.
The time has come for Northern Ireland to recognise that the rest of the United Kingdom is tired of the carnage and tired of the tyranny of small groups who say that there

is no other way. Whether it is the Member of this place who will not take his seat or the Members who have taken their seats but will not perform in the House, the rest of the United Kingdom is tired of the killing. The killing must stop at some stage, and surely that time is now.

Mr. David Winnick: I find it sad that the order deals with a group in the Province which has been in the forefront in campaigning day in and day out against sectarianism. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland agreed with an oral question which I put to him about six months ago about a conference that was being organised by the trade unions in Northern Ireland against sectarianism. It was decided to hold a special one-day conference to make it clear that whatever the differences are that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) has been referring to, when it comes to the future of Northern Ireland, in the eyes of Republicans or Loyalists, taking into account the background and all the rest of it, the role of the trade unions is to unite working people and to try to establish on a daily basis at places of employment the ability of people to work together regardless of their political views or religious affiliations. I speak as a member and officer of a trade union which has members in Northern Ireland. One of the late officials of my union, Harold Binks, played a distinguished role for many years in promoting trade union unity among people with very different backgrounds. He was recognised for his contribution both in Northern Ireland and in the Irish Republic.
Unfortunately, hardly a single day goes by without Northern Ireland being in the news. We all know why. It is because of the terrorist bombings and killings. So many people have difficulty in living their lives because of the terrorist actions of whichever side of the sectarian divide.
The Minister agreed that the trade unions in Northern Ireland have campaigned against terrorism. Therefore, why is it that, in the dying days of this Parliament, penal legislation against those trade unions should be passed? It is an odd way to show understanding. It is a odd way to pay tribute to trade unions in Northern Ireland. Why should anti-trade union legislation, arising from the Employment Act 1982, be applied to trade unions in Northern Ireland?
How will such legislation be interpreted abroad? News of Northern Ireland takes up much coverage not only in our media, but in the media of other European countries and the United States. What will be said of the British Government? Considering all the problems of Northern Ireland the Government have found time, in the last week of this Parliament, to introduce such legislation. Why now? I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer)—indeed, I said so in an earlier intervention—that such legislation arises from a neurotic obsession to act against the trade union movement.
This legislation is a blow against the trade unions in Northern Ireland that have played an important role in the fight against sectarianism. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that, with regard to the membership ballot, issues will be brought into play that do not arise in the rest of the United Kingdom. We are all aware that the sort of sectarianism that exists in Northern Ireland does not exist on the mainland. If such membership ballots lead to


people being asked whether they agree with the Anglo-Irish Agreement or for their views on the future of Northern Ireland, what good will be served? What purpose will be served if the legislation undermines the campaign that the trade unions have fought against sectarianism? That campaign has won praise from the Government. The trade unions have sought to recognise that, at the end of the day, whether one is a Catholic or Protestant, it does not matter at one's place of employment. Such legislation will undermine that campaign.
I view this order with much sadness. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against it tonight. We will be defeated, but certainly when a Labour Government are returned this will be one of the first issues that will be repealed—not only in Northern Ireland but in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Stuart Bell: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)—short though his contributions was—on this important subject. The fact that the House is not heavily attended does not diminish the importance of the debate and importance of the contributions made.
I welcomed, and listened with interest to, the contribution of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark). He sought, in response to the speech of the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) to go to the heart of the problems that face us in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman for South Down (Mr. Powell), as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said, is consistent in the view that he has taken over many years, which is that legislation passed in the House should be the same for the entire United Kingdom. We accept that, as long as Norther Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom there should be some consistency in the legislation——

Mr. Richard Holt: As long as.

Mr. Bell: I am glad that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is present. He has often taken an interest in these debates. He will be aware that in the Anglo-Irish Agreement and part of the history of Northern Ireland since 1920, is the dictum in its constitution that is shall be a part of the United Kingdom for as long as a majority of those who live in Northern Ireland wish to remain a part of the United Kingdom. It provides a possibility for the people of Northern Ireland to take a different position. That fact has been accepted and recognised by successive Governments over many years. It is a point of contention by the right hon. Member for South Down, and legitimately so, since he takes a contrary view.
We are dealing with the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. It came to the House and was fiercely debated in 1982 as the Employment Bill. The right hon. Member for South Down is right to say that it is rather curious that the Government have taken five years to bring it before the House. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North said, it is even more curious that it should be brought before the House as an order, with 90 minutes for debate in the dying days of the Parliament. It is quite remarkable, even though the House is not well attended, that the Government seek, with their

last dying breath, to inflict a diminution of opportunities on trade unionists in Northern Ireland. That is a sad thing. It is a sad finale for the Government. Opposition Members have long believed in a fundamental shift in the balance of wealth and power to workers and their families. In the past eight years, we have seen a fundamental shift from workers and their families. By the order, the Government propose to diminish still further the rights of workers in Northern Ireland. The former Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), said that outside investors in Northern Ireland considered that the labour force was co-operative, productive and of a high quality and compared favourably with that in other locations.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) asked why, if it is the case that the work force is co-operative, productive, and produces work of a high quality, the industrial relations order should be inflicted upon those in the trade union movement in Northern Ireland. It is rather strange that, in such undue haste to bring the order forward, the Government are setting aside a series of statements made by Ministers in the past.
The right hon. Member for Bosworth (Sir. A. Butler), when he was Minister of State, said:
Northern Ireland has its own separate legislative and administrative framework of industrial relations."—[Official Report, 24 March 1982; Vol. 20, c. 1046.]
Why, all of a sudden, in the dying days of the Parliament, have we the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order, seeking to bring adjustments to trade union activity in Northern Ireland? That matter was brought before the House in 1982. It might be useful to point out that unions in Northern Ireland are of a different variety from those in the United Kingdom. Some unions in Northern Ireland are Great Britain-based, some are entirely Northern Ireland-based, and some are Dublin-based. How does one proceed with the punitive sequestration of assets of Dublin-based unions that fall clearly within the jurisdiction of another sovereign country? The Minister has not considered how the order, when it is enacted, as it relates to Dublin-based companies, will affect relations between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom.
We all know what has happened since 1982 in regard to sequestration. We discovered a lawyers' paradise that had not existed since the latter part of the 17th century. A sordid situation arose in which sequestration of union solicitors, union accountants, union bankers and union stockbrokers could be demanded. Unions had to comply with the sequestration orders or be in contempt of court. How will that apply in the future to Dublin-based unions that operate out of Dublin when there is the application of the order to their branches in Northern Ireland?
The Under-Secretary was good enough to take us through the order, but it might be as well to remind hon. Members of those gaps in interpretation that he did not touch upon. The order will provide for a compensation scheme for those dismissed for non-membership of a trade union in a closed shop between 1976 and 1982. Therefore, the order introduces an element of retrospection. We accept that the Government and the House can legislate retrospectively, but we ask whether it is wise to go back five years on a membership, a dismissal or compensation for non-membership of a trade union. Is it wise for the House to exercise its sovereign power in such a way and in such circumstances?
The order will also widen the grounds on which dismissal or actions short of dismissal of non-members of a trade union in a closed shop are unfair. We see this as a simple class attack on trade union rights in Northern Ireland. The trade union movement in Northern Ireland is suffering the sort of robust attack on its rights that we have seen in Great Britain since 1982. The order enables an employee to join as a party to unfair dismissal proceedings any union or other person that he claims put pressure on his employer to dismiss him. There we see again that the unions will be brought before the courts of Northern Ireland over industrial disputes which are entirely matters of relations between worker and employer. The order exacerbates generally the relations between law and trade unions and can only be detrimental to good working practices and productivity in Northern Ireland.
We accept that Government Ministers over a period of years have sought as best they can to bring investment to Northern Ireland. One of the reasons why they have brought investment to Northern Ireland has been the excellent relations between trade unionists and employers. Yet the Government, for doctrinal reasons, feel at this late stage that they ought to upset that balance between trade unionists and employers. Therefore, they are seeking to strike at trade union rights, for no other than ideological reasons, by proposing to render void any clause in a commercial contract that requires the use of union or nonunion labour.
The Government continue that attack further on the abolition of certain trade union immunities. They essentially seek to subdue the work force of Northern Ireland, as they have sought to subdue the work force of Great Britain, by changing the method of computing the period of continuous employment.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West, in a spirited speech on behalf of the Labour party, decried the great animosity we have to the division that is being created in Northern Ireland between those who work there and those who employ there. He touched upon the fact, and I repeat it, that the order awakens in the hearts and minds of the British people how anti-union, anti-worker, anti-production and, in the end, anti-British the Government are when it comes to ameliorating or advancing the needs of working people. Rather, they wish to detract from those rights, often acquired over centuries of dispute, conflict and labour, and they seek to do it by stealth, by an Order in Council, late at night, on a 90-minute motion.
Again, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West touched upon the work record in Northern Ireland and the few disputes that there have been over many years. The only disputes of any note have been those local establishment disputes which were linked, if they were linked to anything at all, to militant community attitudes across the sectarian divide.
This is a serious piece of legislation with many articles. As the right hon. Member for South Down said, it repeals the Trade Disputes Act 1906 as it relates to Northern Ireland. It is outrageous that we have such a short time to discuss this order, but I certainly do not blame the Minister for that. We have no means of changing the order, even if it contains a series of errors by the parliamentary draftsman. This method of dealing with

Northern Ireland legislation must be the first casualty after the general election. Whatever the decision of the electorate, this means of dealing with Northern Ireland business cannot continue.
The Minister said that it was the intention of the order to safeguard the individual from the abuse of industrial power and to improve the operation of the labour market by improving the framework of trade union law. He said that some Opposition Members would consider the order irrelevant. He is right. We consider it to be irrelevant and to add nothing to the prospects of those who work in Northern Ireland by hand or by brain, and who look to the Northern Ireland economy for their wherewithal and their future. It offers nothing to those from abroad who wish to invest in Northern Ireland. It is ideological and has no place in the House; it is not based on the experience of the Employment Act 1982, and it is redundant and should be made so. By our vote on the order we shall express the hope that at some future time it will be redundant.

Mr. Viggers: By leave of the House, may I say that I have listened with interest to all that has been said? I emphasise again that the order is not an attack on trade unions. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) said that it represents a diminution of the rights of trade unionists. I wrote down "Diminution of rights of workers in Northern Ireland." It is not at all an attack on trade unions. It provides a framework within which employers, trade unions and their members are free to act responsibly and to get on with the essential business of providing goods and services without unfair pressures.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West was kind enough to speak about my enthusiasm in introducing the order. I am indeed enthusiastic about the order, just as I was enthusiastic about the Employment Act 1982. It is right that the privileges enjoyed by workers in Great Britain should be extended to Northern Ireland workers. The right hon. and learned member for Warley, West and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough spoke about indecent and undue haste in introducing this legislation. This point was well answered by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), who said that five years could scarcely be regarded as undue haste. Negotiations have stretched over three Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland. In my post as the Minister with responsibilities for industry in Northern Ireland, I have been hoping for some months that it would be possible to introduce this order and I am happy to introduce it now.

Mr. Archer: Does the hon. Gentleman not regard an hour and a half as undue haste for legislation of this complexity?

Mr. Viggers: The time allowed for the debate is a different matter. We recognise the concerns expressed in the debate and voiced from various quarters at different times that legislation for Northern Ireland by Order-inCouncil is unsatisfactory. We do not pretend that this method of legislation is perfect. For that reason, our existing procedures provide for extensive consultation in Northern Ireland and, if desired, for debate in the Northern Ireland Committee. We always seek to take


careful account of any points put to us on proposals for draft legislation. Obviously, it is much easier to do that before draft orders are laid.
My first point is that more use could be made of existing procedures. That is not to say that our minds are closed to the possibility of change, but we should always remember that Orders in Council were never intended as a permanent means of legislating for Northern Ireland. During direct rule they stand in the place of measures by the Northern Ireland Assembly. We appreciate that difficulties are posed by unamendable Orders in Council. We are willing to talk about the problem to all interested parties including, of course, the Unionist parties, and to consider constructive suggestions against the background that I have described.
Let me immediately agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West about the excellent industrial relations performance in Northern Ireland. It is indeed most welcome, and long may it last. However, by itself it is not an argument for failing to extend to Northern Ireland people the same rights held by workers in Great Britain; nor is an argument for failing to give protection against the possible abuse of trade union power, or the unjustified disruption of ecomomic activity. Traditionally, industrial relations legislation in Northern Ireland has followed that in the rest of the United Kingdom, and the Government see no need to depart from that policy in the present instance.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to possible pernicious effects of the order. It has been argued that, as the unions in Northern Ireland have not abused their power, there is no need for the order. If there were no abuses, it is difficult to see in what respect our proposal could cause any difficulty. Others argue that the provisions of the order will he oppressive, thereby implicitly admitting that abuses occur. Those arguments reinforce my view that a legal framework is required. If there are no abuses, it will confirm the good sense of the unions in Northern Ireland. On the other hand, employers and workers will know that, if there are abuses, the order provides them with legal remiedies.

Mr. Archer: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again, but has he not grasped the point that, if the effect of the order is to introduce into industrial relations the very sectarian divisions from which the unions have succeeded in keeping aloof, it will have a pernicious effect?

Mr. Viggers: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made an important point. We are aware that there have been suggestions that the closed-shop balloting provisions could be used to destabilise the trade union structure and introduce a sectarian dimension. However, we do not consider that the provisions by themselves are likely to have that reult. Similar arguments have been put forward before the House on a number of occasions. During a debate on the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order in 1982, the then spokesman for the Labour party said that the provisions would give plenty of scope and encouragement to those who were intent on using worker power for sectarian purposes. The Government did not accept that argument then, and we believe that we have been proved right in the intervening five years. We do not agree that the provisions can be perverted into being used for sectarian purposes.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a point about the drafting of article 22(a) of the order. He will

agree that it is not difficult to find some words of legal gobbledegook in most legislation. The drafting of the order follows that of the Employment Act 1982, and consolidates those changes into the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1976.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, and others who have contributed to the debate, made a significant point about the distinctive position of unions in Northern Ireland. Some are based in London, some in Dublin. Of course we were aware of the different positions of unions based in the Republic of Ireland, and we could have sought to place conditions on their operation in Northern Ireland. However, the legislation does not seek to differentiate such unions from those based in the United Kingdom. They have the same rights and immunities as United Kingdom-based unions; they also have the same obligations to act responsibly and within the law.
Let me establish the facts. The vast majority of trade unions operating in Northern Ireland—there are 88—are Great Britain-based, but eight have their headquarters in Northern Ireland, and five are based in Dublin. The five Dublin-based unions have about 19,000 members, which is about 7 per cent. of the total union membership in Northern Ireland. Enforcement of Northern Ireland court judgments in the Republic will be possible when the Republic gives effect to the European convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. In practice, we do not anticipate a particular problem.
On the one hand, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made a point about indecent haste; on the other hand, the right hon. Member for South Down mentioned the long delay in introducing the order.
I have already said that Northern Ireland's industrial relations law tends to follow that of Great Britain. There have been divergencies. With a separate, albeit similar, body of legislation it is right and important to consult fully both sides of industry on the precise way ahead for the Province. In this instance, consultation has been prolonged, but the Government are now satisfied that the appropriate course of action is to replicate the provisions of the 1982 Act in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) paid what I believe to be a well deserved tribute to the late Harold Binks who was a most respected leader of a white collar trade union. We recognise and respect the stand of the trade unions in Northern Ireland against sectarianism. I am entirely happy to endorse the hon. Gentleman's remaks in that respect and to reiterate and endorse the remarks of ministerial colleagues who have also referred to the point. In practice, however, the balloting provisions in this order should not provide an opportunity radically to alter the present political sectarian scene. Ballots are not compulsory. There have been relatively few in Great Britain, and I should regard it as most unlikely to find that ballots were misused for sectarian purposes.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough made an important point about article 4 and schedule 1, which relate to compensation for closed shop dismissals between 1976 and 1982. It is erroneous to describe this as retrospective legislation. It does not declare unfair what the law then said was fair. The article does not impose any additional burden on employers or unions. The law in 1976 was that an employer could impose a closed shop and dismiss without compensation anyone who refused to join.


This provision brings Northern Ireland law into line with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the British Rail case over the dismissal of three railway workers because of the closed shop. That was held to have been contrary to article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights—the right to free association and the right to join a trade union. In practice, we do not anticipate that there are likely to be any or many cases under this article, but the hon. Gentleman ought to respect the fact that it is right that the European Convention on Human Rights should be replicated in Northern Ireland in this way.
In conclusion, I reiterate that this order is another measure in the step by step approach to restoring the balance between the rights and responsibilities of trade unions, employers, individuals and society generally. It thus follows on from the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1982. I fully accept that both the trade union movement and employers have been successful in keeping sectarian tension away from the shop floor, and I should like to associate the Government with the tributes that have been paid to both sides of industry. I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 161, Noes 127.

Division No. 162]
[11.45 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Emery, Sir Peter


Amess, David
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Aspinwall, Jack
Fallon, Michael


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Favell, Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Forman, Nigel


Batiste, Spencer
Forth, Eric


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bevan, David Gilroy
Franks, Cecil


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fry, Peter


Blackburn, John
Gale, Roger


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorst, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gow, Ian


Bottomley, Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gregory, Conal


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Bright, Graham
Ground, Patrick


Brinton, Tim
Grylls, Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bruinvels, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Budgen, Nick
Hannam, John


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hawksley, Warren


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, J.


Cash, William
Hayward, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Churchill, W. S.
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hind, Kenneth


Conway, Derek
Hirst, Michael


Coombs, Simon
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Cope, John
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Corrie, John
Holt, Richard


Crouch, David
Howard, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Dunn, Robert
Jackson, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Eggar, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)





Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Ottaway, Richard


Key, Robert
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Knowles, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Knox, David
Powley, John


Lang, Ian
Price, Sir David


Lawler, Geoffrey
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lawrence, Ivan
Raffan, Keith


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rathbone, Tim


Lester, Jim
Renton, Tim


Lightbown, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Lilley, Peter
Rowe, Andrew


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Ryder, Richard


Lord, Michael
Sackville, Hon Thomas


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maclean, David John
Squire, Robin


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Malone, Gerald
Sumberg, David


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marlow, Antony
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thurnham, Peter


Mather, Sir Carol
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Maude, Hon Francis
Trotter, Neville


Moate, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Waller, Gary


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Whitfield, John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Wiggin, Jerry


Murphy, Christopher
Wolfson, Mark


Neale, Gerrard
Wood, Timothy


Nelson, Anthony



Newton, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Michael Neubert.


Norris, Steven



Onslow, Cranley





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Eastham, Ken


Alton, David
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Anderson, Donald
Fatchett, Derek


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Ashdown, Paddy
Fisher, Mark


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Flannery, Martin


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foster, Derek


Barron, Kevin
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Beith, A. J.
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bell, Stuart
Golding, Mrs Llin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hardy, Peter


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Home Robertson, John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Hoyle, Douglas


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bruce, Malcolm
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hume, John


Canavan, Dennis
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kennedy, Charles


Clarke, Thomas
Kirkwood, Archy


Clelland, David Gordon
Lamond, James


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Leadbitter, Ted


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Leighton, Ronald


Corbett, Robin
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Litherland, Robert


Crowther, Stan
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Loyden, Edward


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dobson, Frank
McKelvey, William


Dormand, Jack
McTaggart, Robert


Dubs, Alfred
McWilliam, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Madden, Max






Marek, Dr John
Rowlands, Ted


Martin, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Maynard, Miss Joan
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Meacher, Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Meadowcroft, Michael
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Michie, William
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Mikardo, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Nellist, David
Strang, Gavin


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Matthew


Parry, Robert
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Patchett, Terry
Wallace, James


Pike, Peter
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wareing, Robert


Radice, Giles
Welsh, Michael


Randall, Stuart
Wigley, Dafydd


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Redmond, Martin
Winnick, David


Richardson, Ms Jo
Woodall, Alec


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)



Robertson, George
Tellers for the Noes


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Don Dixon.


Rogers, Allan



Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 22nd January, be approved.

Representation of the People

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move,
That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 7th May, be approved.
If the House approves the draft order, the effect will be to enable all candidates at the coming general election to increase their expenditure by 4 per cent. over existing limits. In practical terms, it will mean that spending limits in county and borough constituencies with, for example, 60,000 electors will be increased from £5,460 and £4,920 to £5,650 and £5,110 respectively.
In addition, the draft order will, if approved, increase the limits for local government elections in Great Britain, for certain elections to the City of London and for elections to ILEA and for elections by liverymen in common hall, whoever they may be.
The draft order, which was laid before the House on 7 May, is brought forward under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Sections 76(A) and 197(3) enable my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to vary limits on spending in parliamentary and local government elections by an amount necessary to take account of changes in the value of money which have occurred since the date when such limits were first fixed.
The statute does not empower my right hon. Friend to increase spending limits by more than that necessary to preserve the real value of the limit. The procedure prescribed by the Act is for the change to be made by order which is subject to affirmative resolution.
The current limits for parliamentary and local government elections, excluding ILEA elections, were fixed by the Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order on 1 March 1986. Since that time prices have risen by 4 per cent. Consequently there has arisen a general expectation that spending limits at the forthcoming general election would be increased by 4 per cent. This is a response to that.
A similar rate of increase will apply to ward elections in the City of London. However, a different rate of increase—5·6 per cent.—will apply to ILEA elections and to elections by liverymen in common hall. This will reflect the increase in prices that has occurred since 16 July 1985.[Interruption.] I hear hon. Members urging me to "hurry up", and hurry up I will. I hope that the changes will be acceptable to the House on the ground that they will enable us all to fight a more effective campaign.

Mr. Robin Corbett: It has been left uncommonly late to bring this order before the House, but it is right that is should be brought.
I have a question for the Minister which I know he will not feel obliged to answer. As the order increases the sums that candidates may spend, will he tell us where we will get the money'? We on these Benches have less ready access to funds than Conservative Members.
More seriously, I hope that one day a Home Office Minister will propose some limits on the national spending of parties, not candidates. This is a Polo order: there is a hole in the middle. Although we constrain the spending, of individual candidates, we have no control over the


spending of national parties, urging people to vote for them. That must be a hole in the provisions we make under the Act because it is inherently unfair. Even the United States, which does not always follow our procedures, has such controls, and rightly.
We must pay attention to that because it undermines what we rightly and jointly do about the spending of individual candidates, if national parties with access to various war chests can book poster spaces and sites. It is a serious point, and I do not expect the Minister to respond to it, but I want it on the record because we should give it urgent attention.

12 midnight

Mr. David Alton: I hope that the Minister will respond to one or two of the points that have been made, to which I should like to add my own.
Although it is sensible to have introduced this order and to index-link election expense limits in line with inflation I do not think that the order is wide enough. Although it is useful in terms of the immediate general election for the candidate to know that he or she can afford the cost of preparing three of four newsletters or election addresses to go out to their constituents, it will be difficult for some in certain parts of the country to stay within that limit and fight the sort of campaign that they would wish. One of the reasons for that is that there is a difference in weighting between the south-east and parts of the north. Printing costs are more expensive in some parts of the country than others. Those matters should be looked at.
There are other aspects of the way in which the election expense law works on which this order falls short. For instance, some parties are able to get special concessions from printers, which are then given in lieu of donations and sometimes work is done in-house. There are many examples of that.
Many hon. Members, including myself, have worked as election agents in Parliamentary and local elections. The worry of staying within election limits is something that haunts all election agents. I know that candidates always believe that they win elections and that agents are thought to lose them. The candidate gets the glory and the agent often gets a lot of the blame. There is an awful lot of worry associated with being an election agent and I should like to see tighter guidelines and detailed parameters drawn up to help agents who are trying to organise election campaigns.
We must look at other issues, of which endorsements is one. I understand that the Socialist group of the European Parliament is distributing endorsements in some constituencies that are paid for by European Parliament funds. I wonder whether that kind of endorsement will appear on people's election addresses and expenses. If not, why not, and will it be covered by the order?
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) raised the issue of national expenditure, which clearly promotes the cause of a candidate in the seat that the candidate is fighting, yet that does not have to be taken into account when drawing up the election returns that are ultimately submitted to the returning officer. One only has to think back to the 1983 election to see how vast the discrepancies between the different parties have become. The Conservative party at the last general election spent £3,558,000, of which some £62,000 was in grants to

constituency campaigns. That made an effective total outside the limitation election expenses of £3,496,000. By far the largest item of expenditure of the Conservative party was advertising, much of which was in the newspapers and on hoardings. We all saw the Saatchi and Saatchi campaigns and remember the "Labour isn't working" posters. That cost the Conservative party some £2,568,000, which was not entered on individual election expenses. While we can limit the expenditure of an individual candidate to £5,650, no limit is placed on what Conservative party central office can spend on these massive advertising campaigns.
As to the Labour party, the position is not much different. It spent some £2,057,000, of which £305,000 went to local campaigns, making an unlimited total spent nationally of some £1,752,000. Expenditure on advertising by the labour party comprised £878,000 within that total. Again, that money did not have to appear on individual candidates' election expenses.
The Liberal party—I make no complaint about this because we did not have the same amount of funds—spent about £120,000, plus a donation of £245,000 from the Joseph Rowntree social service trust, of which £140,000 was earmarked for Liberal candidates. The central unlimited total was, therefore, about £225,000. That money did not have to be shown on election expense returns either.
Clearly there are major discrepancies between what parties can spend nationally and what must be shown on the election returns. It is a very unsatisfactory system, which means that some parties are more equal than others when they start at the firing line, as we are doing today. It means that those with money bags can go out and try to buy votes in a way that many of us thought went out with the Reform Act. There is also the implication that, purely because of its access to money, a party can fight a campaign which allows it to put its policies across in a more effective way than other parties, which do not have access to the same resources, although they may have exactly the same share of the popular vote.
We have a five-five-five equal share of time on television and radio during the forthcoming campaign——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting away from the order before the House, which deals specifically with the maximum amount of expenses. He must confine himself to that.

Mr. Alton: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In conclusion, the order is a useful small measure to help agents and candidates budget for the forthcoming election campaign but in the future we must surely turn our minds to a system of state financing, which may be the only way to ensure equality among political parties in the way in which they run their affairs and to ensure that they are not in hock to the paymasters who seem to call the tune at present.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I must confess that I find the bellyaching of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) singularly unattractive. He began by complaining that the alliance did not have enough money to embark on a national campaign last time around. He spoke of the Liberal party having about a quarter of a million pounds, but he neglected to say that between them


the alliance parties, if such they be, spent between £1·4 million and £1·5 million. It might have been more helpful if he had given the House the correct figure.[Interruption.] It is no use the hon. Gentleman waving his hands in a deprecatory way. He should have given the correct figure, but he did not.
The problem arose only in 1974 when one party started the programme of national campaigns in the Daily Express at a cost of £25,000. And which party was that? It was the Liberal party. Yet now the Liberals come whining to the House making the kind of unattractive speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. It is worse than that. "Oh dear," said the hon. Gentleman, "the limits are not high enough—we shall not be able to buy the kind of campaign that we want and our agents will have difficulty keeping within the spending limits." It seems that it is, after all, rather a rich party, committed to buying a campaign.

Mr. Alton: rose——

Mr. Hogg: No, the hon. Gentleman will have to listen for a change. When I examined the figures I also discovered that in the constituencies that they won the Liberals spent 87 per cent. of the maximum allowed, which was the highest spending of any of the parties. The complaints of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill are therefore unattractive and should not have been made.

Question put and agreed to.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE

Resolved,

That the draft Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 7th May, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c).

NORTHERN IRELAND

Resolved,

That the draft Occupiers' Liability (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 2nd April, he approved.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Drink Driving

Mr. Martin Brandon-Bravo: At a late hour on this day and in the lifetime of this Parliament, I beg leave to present to the House a petition initiated in my constituency and signed by 5,000 people broadly throughout the country.
The petitioners do not ask for draconian or killjoy legislation but for a simple, common-sense approach to one aspect of our laws on drinking and driving which makes a travesty of natural justice. They petition
Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House do make an amendment to the present law pertaining to the Drink/Driving Offences; Whereby enabling hospital blood samples to be permissible evidence in a Court of Law if so requested by the Police.
What they ask is reasonable, and I hope that during the life of the next Parliament it will be seriously considered, and, I sincerely hope, granted.

To lie upon the Table.

Mrs. B. Dawson (Compensation Claim)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Mr. Rob Hayward: I raise this evening the subject of the Status of Forces agreement 1951 as it relates to my constituent, Mrs. Dawson, and four other constituents of mine.
This is the first occasion during this Parliament on which I have had the opportunity to raise an Adjournment debate, and, throughout this Parliament, I could not be regarded as having gone over the top or been unduly aggressive about raising problems with Ministers. However, I believe that there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice in this case, which stems, apparently, from an agreement that was originally introduced in 1951. 'That was followed by a mixture of what I believe has been disinterest and incompetence in a number of places, resulting in what can most generously be described as minuscule offers of compensation to the individuals concerned.
On 3 April last year, Mrs. Dawson and four children—Philip Sinclair and Karl, Sara and Emma Boughey—were walking along a road in Germany that is classified as civilian territory. Three of the children are children of a REME officer, and the other two are civilians. While walking along the road they were hit by shrapnel from a shell fired by American forces, which had overshot a range by about 3·5 km.
All five of the individuals concerned suffered varying degrees of injuries. Emma, the most seriously injured, was rushed to a German hospital in Hanover university, and, a year later, she still has shrapnel—it passed through her skull—embedded in her brain. That shrapnel will stay there, certainly until adulthood, and possibly for the rest of her life. Mrs. Dawson suffered injuries to the back of the neck which have damaged her nervous system and have resulted in her having to spend four more days in Frenchay hospital—a local general hospital in Bristol—some 12½ months after the accident.
Philip Sinclair has scarring to the legs and foot which resulted from the shrapnel hitting his foot and having to be removed. Like Mrs. Dawson, he is still not clear of full medical treatment, and it is likely that he will suffer intermittent pains and need treatment for the rest of his life.
After the incident of 3 April, which took place on civilian territory and was not my constituents' fault, they were visited a day later by a brigade commander of the Berlin brigade of the United States forces—one General Griffin—whose urgent visit to four of the five patients in hospital showed the seriousness with which the United States forces appeared to take the case. The family was told, then and on other occasions, that they would not want for anything as a result of the accident. That, however, does not appear to be the case 13 months later.
The case was then dealt with by British Army of the Rhine legal officers, and my constituents have no complaints about the medical advice or assistance that they received from the British forces, or about the legal advice that they were given—until November. In November, Mrs. Dawson and Philip Sinclair decided, as civilians, to employ a German lawyer who is a specialist in this area, and took the case on themselves. After a few

months they received offers of compensation, which may or may not include sums for pain and suffering, of 3,400 deutschmarks and just over 3,000 deutschmarks respectively—the equivalent of about £1,100 and £1,000—for loss of earnings, travel expenses, clothing, telephone calls and the rest. It is clear that, for Philip Sinclair, the offer is exclusive of any compensation for pain and suffering because the German lawyer has said that there is no such concept in German law.
The family came to me to discuss the offer. Anyone who knows the injuries that have been suffered would be amazed to learn that they have been offered £1,100 and £1,000. I took the case up and asked for an urgent Adjournment debate because we understand that the family has to make a decision by 30 May to enable their German laywer to act. There was also the prospect of a general election being called.
During the past 10 days, I have written to the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office to draw their attention to the case. I have also attempted to draw the details of the case to the attention of what I might call agencies of the United States. I started off with the embassy and the defence attaché. I was transferred to the public affairs office, then to the judge advocate general at Burtonwood in Cheshire, to the public affairs office there, back to the defence attaché at the embassy, to the public affairs department there, to the defence attache, to the political military attaché, back to Burtonwood, back to the embassy and finally to Mildenhall on Friday.
With only one exception, I have had to instigate all of those telephone calls. On Friday, I received a telephone call from Burtonwood advising me to contact Mildenhall, but the senior officer to whom I was supposed to speak was not available. I waited for a telephone call this morning for three and a half working hours, at which point I telephoned Mildenhall. I was then referred back to the embassy.
Out of courtesy, I advised the United States ambassador's office this morning that I intended to complain about the response that I had received from the US forces and the embassy. I have received some response, but what is the net effect? I have been referred to Mannheim.
This is the result of the efforts of a Member of Parliament. What can one expect an ordinary British citizen to achieve when faced with such an impossible task? I cannot imagine that any British citizen would have had any reasonable success.
Several questions must be asked, the first of which concerns the Status of Forces agreement. The family have consistently been told that the agreement must apply to all five. They are therefore bound by an agreement that was signed in 1951. I cannot imagine that it was then envisaged that people who suffered as a result of an error by a member of the American forces would receive such minimal compensation.
I am sure that my constituents would have been offered not £1,000 but tens of thousands of pounds in Britain and hundreds of thousands of pound in the United States. That is particularly the position of Emma Boughey, who received an offer of compensation this morning. The offer has been made to her parents because she is still a minor. She has shrapnel embedded in her brain, and if it moves as she continues to grow and her skull enlarges it could result in her becoming paraplegic for the rest of her life. However, she has been offered only 17,000 deutschmarks,


which is about £5,600. Is it realistic to expect any family to accept £5,600 in circumstances in which it may find in about 10 years that its daughter becomes paraplegic? We do not know that that will happen, but the medical advice will not become clear for 10 years. Throughout that time the parents and the rest of the family have the worry over what might or might not happen and the costs that they will be faced with for the rest of Emma's, Karl's and Sara's lives. The offers in respect of Karl and Emma have been confirmed today as being 1,000 and 2,000 deutschmarks respectively.
I do not believe that the Status of Forces agreement was ever intended to result in this gross anomaly of justice for these five British citizens. Therefore, I ask whether it is the intention that such circumstances should arise, especially when these people were not anywhere near the range from which the shell was fired. The shell overshot the range by 3·5 km as they were walking on German civilian territory, so there are implications for others who are on holiday in Germany and in other countries where the agreement applies, which means all NATO countries.
Can it really be that the American forces are able to hide behind the agreement, especially when a commitment was made, as understood by, the family, by the brigade commander, the senior officer responsible for such action, that it would want for nothing as a result of the accident that had occurred? I remind the House that the brigade commander took extreme action by arriving at the hospital one day after the accident happened. That was a clear sign of the seriousness with which he viewed the matter.
There is an apparent contradiction in whether pain and suffering is a concept that applies in German law. The letters that the family has received in respect of Philip Sinclair state specifically that there is no such allowance in German law. The implication in the letter that Mrs. Dawson has received is similar. If that is the position, what is the nature of the offer that has been made to Emma Boughey of about 17,000 deutschmarks? As I understand it, the costs associated with her case do not amount to that sum, so it would seem that within that total there is a concept of pain and suffering. If that is so, that further highlights my view and that of the family that it has been offered a ridiculously minuscule sum.
In the brief period that I have been in contact with the family I have made my best efforts on its behalf. Over the previous 13 months it has made exceptional efforts to pursue its case, that have resulted in a small offer of compensation. I would ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether he, with me, will make a plea to the United States ambassador for him to intervene in this matter to ensure that there is justice and due deserts for the family, which comprises ordinary British citizens who seem not to have secured natural justice.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Eggar): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) on bringing this unfortunate case to the attention of the House. I commend my hon. Friend on the considerable action that he has taken in the short time that he has been involved in what is, by any standards, a complex and complicated case.
May I first extend my sympathy to Mrs. Dawson, her nephew and grandchildren and wish them a speedy recovery. I was sorry to learn that the effects of the

accident will remain with some of them for a very long time. My hon. Friend has referred to the 1951 Status of Forces agreement and, by inference, to the 1959 supplementary agreement relating to foreign forces stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany. I must say to my hon. Friend that I am not sure that the 1951 agreement is as relevant to this case as my hon. Friend thinks. That is because paragraph 5(a) of article VIII of the 1951 Status of Forces agreement sets out the general principle that:
Claims shall be filed, considered and settled or adjudicated in accordance with the laws and regulations of the receiving state with respect, to claims arising from the authorities of its own armed forces.
The effect of that article is that where United States forces are responsible for an accident in the Federal Republic of Germany, the victims' remedy is governed by German law, in the German courts, as if German forces had been responsible.
In correspondence my hon. Friend raised the question whether the 1951 Status of Forces agreement applies to "civilian German territory," but it is not germane. As far as claims are concerned, the 1951 Status of Forces agreement applies to acts or omissions by the armed forces of one member state in the performance of official duties in the territory of another member state. One may assume, therefore, that the 1951 Status of Forces agreement applies whether the shell landed within or outside a military area. NATO could not function and train effectively without such an agreement. The 1951 Status of Forces agreement does not lay down scales of compensation, but provides a forum in which claims are settled. As I have said, it provides that claims should be dealt with by the host Government regardless of which NATO force was involved in the incident. The existence of the 1951 Status of Forces agreement does not, therefore, in itself, adversely affect the claimants in this case. Indeed it removes from the claimant the need to embark on the possibly lenghty and costly process of having to establish who is responsible for what and where.
I agree that in this case there was no such dispute, but if there had been such a dispute the benefit of the agreement would be obvious. In this instance liability has not been disputed, the claims have been dealt with by the claims office of the city of Luneburg and a formal offer of compensation has been made.
My hon. Friend has made it clear that he does not regard that offer as acceptable. My hon. Friend stated that there is some dispute about the extent to which the compensation offered covered pain and suffering. The Foreign Office is not in a position to offer legal advice, but is so far as it has been able to study the documents, it appears that both the letters from the claims office to Mrs. Dawson's German lawyer and the lawyer's letters to Mrs. Dawson show that the question of pain and suffering was taken into account. Of the sum offered to Philip Sinclair, approximately five sixths were for pain and suffering. In Mrs. Dawson's case it appears that the claims office considered that a final estimate for pain and suffering was not possible as her treatment had not been completed. However, of the total offered to her almost half is a provisional award for pain and suffering, which has already been paid.
My hon. Friend has described the offers of settlement as minuscule. I understand the considerations that have led him to use that word, but it is up to the claimants to


decide whether to accept or reject these out-of-court settlements. In this respect, the German legal system is no different from the British or indeed, American systems. Indeed, the claims office in Luneburg has made it clear that, if the claimants wish to dispute the settlements offered, they should sue the Federal Republic of Germany in the appropriate court, within two months of receiving notice of the settlement.
I do not wish in any way to underestimate the circumstances of this most unfortunate accident and the traumatic effect on the victims. However, Mrs. Dawson and Philip Sinclair are not dependants of a serving member of Her Majesty's forces, nor were members of Her Majesty's forces involved in this incident. This case, therefore, in its essentials, is a civil claim for damages and is not a matter for the Ministry of Defence. Nor is it for Her Majesty's Government to comment on the adequacy or otherwise of any particular offer of settlement, nor do Her Majesty's Government have any standing to intervene in the legal process. Our advice in all such cases is that the aggrieved party or parties should seek local expert legal advice. Mrs. Dawson has already done so and her lawyer has given her his advice. Therefore, it is for Mrs. Dawson and the parents of Philip Sinclair to decide, perhaps after further consultation with the lawyer, whether to go ahead with litigation. I must emphasise that that matter is, and can only be a private decision.
My hon. Friend has also asked whether the United States forces have any responsibility to provide compensation over and above any offer of settlement made by the German authorities or compensation that might be obtained by legal proceedings. I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that United States forces have no such responsibility. Under the terms of the 1951 agreement, they are responsible only for reimbursing the Federal German authorities 75 per cent. of the compensation that is actually awarded either out of court or as a result of court action. My hon. Friend also referred to statements said to have been made by General Griffin

of the United States Army. That is a matter for the General, and I do not think that there is any comment that I can make on it. I will ensure that the record of the debate is passed on to the United States ambassador in London. I will make sure that his attention is drawn to my hon. Friend's remarks.
On the sums offered to the Boughey children, they are dependants of a serving member of Her Majesty's forces. Their awards are provisional and are subject to further negotiations between the British Army of the Rhine legal service and the relevant German authorities. Of course, BAOR is involved in the case because the children are dependants.
I am sure, that my hon. Friend would wish to join me in an expression of thanks to the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Germany for their prompt action immediately after the accident. A group of German soldiers who were nearby gave immediate first aid and drove Mrs. Dawson, her nephew and grandchildren to a nearby military medical centre and from there by German military ambulance to the district hospital at Soltau where her nephew and two of her grandchildren underwent surgery. The third grandchild was flown by German military helicopter to the university clinic at Hanover. As a result of that prompt action all the British citizens involved were treated for their injuries with a minimum of delay.
Although I fully understand and, indeed, sympathise with my hon. Friend's concern for his constituents following this most unfortunate incident, I am afraid that I must emphasise that Mrs. Dawson and the parents of Philip Sinclair can seek redress only through the German legal process. The decision whether to pursue litigation against the German state must remain one for the family, in consultation with its German lawyer. Much as I regret it, Her Majesty's Government have no standing to intervene in the process.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to One o'clock.